From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:10:37 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <20071014142826.8caa0a9f.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <20071017073538.GB13801@spearce.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Christian Couder , Junio Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Shawn O. Pearce" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 17 20:11:03 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IiDMA-0004QT-6y for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:10:58 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756678AbXJQSKs (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:10:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756067AbXJQSKs (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:10:48 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:46652 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755813AbXJQSKr (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:10:47 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 17 Oct 2007 18:10:45 -0000 Received: from wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de (EHLO openvpn-client) [132.187.25.13] by mail.gmx.net (mp021) with SMTP; 17 Oct 2007 20:10:45 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+2jpYoCP627skn2n3BCdPl8/QY5DkpZPkWQOi9Ig 0A+eNj1kzKqe1N X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: <20071017073538.GB13801@spearce.org> X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > Christian Couder wrote: > > Here is my bisect dunno patch series again. > > The changes since last time are the following: > > I now have this series queued in my pu branch. It passes the tests > it comes with, and doesn't appear to break anything, but apparently > there is also still some debate about what a dunno should be called > ("unknown", "void", "ugly", "dunno", "skip" ...). AFAICT these are all bikeshed painting arguments, not technical arguments. I was initially opposed to having --bisect-all, wanting to have --bisect-dunno ... But in the end, the people doing the work decide, and therefore I am fine with --bisect-all, especially since it seems clean enough for me. As for all those "dunno is no English"... I'd first merge the technical part (i.e. what you have now in pu), and then let the discussion about which synonyms to choose continue, until a consensus is formed about other names (if there is a consensus at all!). IMHO there is no reason to hold of the fine work of Christian, just because there are non-technical arguments still in the air. I want bisect dunno. Even if there is another name later. Ciao, Dscho