Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] bisect: status improvements when bisect is not fully fleshed out

From: Chris Down <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2022 22:22:52 +0100

Junio C Hamano writes:
>Chris Down <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Thanks Junio and Taylor for reviewing. I have the following action
>> items for v3:
>>
>> # [1/3] bisect: lowercase "Bisect:" to "bisect:" prior to wider use
>>
>> - New patch
>
>My preference actually were to leave this change out of the topic.
>That is, instead of using "status:" in newer messages, have them use
>the same "Bisecting:", so that all the "where we are in the bisect
>session?" messages from the command use that same prefix.

Sure, that also works.

>I also wonder if the existing "Bisecting:" messages should also be
>sent as comment to the log file, using the same bisect_log_printf()
>helper (with the v2 patches, they are still using printf() and sent
>only to the standard output).
>
>But this, just like "status:" -> "Bisecting:" -> "bisecting:" you
>reacted to, is just "I wonder...", and is not a suggestion to make
>changes as part of this series.  Something to think about for a
>possible follow-up after we complete this topic.
>
>But I do not mind if you want to go the extra mile to do all of the
>above as part of the series.  It would make the series to require
>more reviews, which is why I generally recommend against extending
>the scope of the (initial) topic too much and instead leave as much
>additional changes to follow-up series after the initial series is
>done.

Sounds good then, I'll send another one after this goes in :-)

Thanks!