Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] bisect: output state before we are ready to compute bisection

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2022 09:42:35 -0700

Taylor Blau <[email-masked]> writes:

>> +	if (!bs.nr_good && !bs.nr_bad)
>> +		printf(_("status: waiting for both good and bad commits\n"));
>> +	else if (bs.nr_good)
>> +		printf(Q_("status: waiting for bad commit, %d good commit known\n",
>> +			  "status: waiting for bad commit, %d good commits known\n",
>> +			  bs.nr_good), bs.nr_good);
>> +	else
>> +		printf(_("status: waiting for good commit(s), bad commit known\n"));
>> +}
>
> Could or should these printf()'s be advise() calls instead?

Given that existing bisect_next_all() mesasge to give estimates come
to the standard output, I do not think so.

	/*
	 * TRANSLATORS: the last %s will be replaced with "(roughly %d
	 * steps)" translation.
	 */
	printf(Q_("Bisecting: %d revision left to test after this %s\n",
		  "Bisecting: %d revisions left to test after this %s\n",
		  nr), nr, steps_msg);

I view these new messages as merely correcting the gap we used to
have.  We should have been giving feedback to the end-user when they
did something, but instead we were giving feedback only when we did
something, which resulted in the original "Huh?" that motivated this
series.

I actually wonder if we should do s/status:/Bisecting:/ to make the
messages even more uniform, but if we were to go in that direction
in the longer term, we'd probably be downcasing "Bisecting" to match
our error/warning/info messages.

Thanks.