From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:59:04 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <20071014142826.8caa0a9f.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <471302D2.6010405@trolltech.com> <200710150902.52653.johan@herland.net> <7EDF99A4-00BD-4F89-A31F-DCA33723CDD5@wincent.com> <0C82FD96-2CF9-4E66-91EB-DBC2CFF003E8@adacore.com> <85ve98gl57.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=us-ascii Cc: Geert Bosch , David Symonds , Wincent Colaiuta , Johan Herland , git@vger.kernel.org, Marius Storm-Olsen , Christian Couder , Ren? Scharfe , Junio Hamano , Johannes Schindelin To: David Kastrup X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Oct 18 01:01:16 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 1IiHsv-00014O-1c for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:01:05 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759864AbXJQXAf (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:00:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1760163AbXJQXAe (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:00:34 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:54769 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759146AbXJQXAc (ORCPT ); Wed, 17 Oct 2007 19:00:32 -0400 Received: from imap1.linux-foundation.org (imap1.linux-foundation.org [207.189.120.55]) by smtp2.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id l9HMx6xN000326 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:59:07 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by imap1.linux-foundation.org (8.13.5.20060308/8.13.5/Debian-3ubuntu1.1) with ESMTP id l9HMx4pW012595; Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:59:04 -0700 In-Reply-To: <85ve98gl57.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.217 required=5 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,OSDL_HEADER_SUBJECT_BRACKETED X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0-osdl_revision__1.47__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: lf$Revision: 1.188 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.53 on 207.189.120.14 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, David Kastrup wrote: > Geert Bosch writes: > > > On Oct 15, 2007, at 13:53, David Symonds wrote: > >> That's also why I suggested "skip"; you might not be able to test a > >> particular commit, but you might also not *want* to test a particular > >> commit for some reason. > > > > Skip seems a great choice: it directly expresses the wish to > > not consider a certain commit. The reason is unimportant. > > But it is an _action_, while "good" and "bad" are properties. Well, this has been debated to death, but I actually think that "skip" is a good choice, exactly because it's an action. "good" and "bad" do indeed describe properties of the commit, and are used to describe the state of the tree in question. In contrast, "git bisect skip" says not somethign about the state of that tree - it talks about what we should *do* with that tree. IOW, I think "git bisect skip" in some sense has more to do with an action like "git bisect start", than with "good" or "bad". (Yes, "good" and "bad" have an action associated with them too - namely to start the next bisection event - but they are not named according to the action they cause, but because they describe the tree state) Linus