From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C6551F4B4 for ; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 16:44:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727522AbgIXQoa (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:44:30 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:62293 "EHLO pb-smtp2.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726477AbgIXQoa (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:44:30 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20E628D8A6; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:44:28 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=aIRvHkYQVBgxVCezyCJnX6bXpWY=; b=KBSzpO JNniOkzQ88Eb9hXVhmdWC3LyVQdRpG1lD2YDSsb+Du8ZGt3XrjgT3cGGCF352yzy CR3yhXGx7kNDYceu9JnEdZocYgHo0DtoRNrC7XH8uXMP99njKIsX8vtwp501s1OQ nu3lKbBPr6Ybw26l0qW86wV/akRTGaVAnqoNg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=H4J0pMuGQy39b9DukB3R2mBreEylkz+b yQGVzWH3EiBs0MGeJcJtFkcfiFpYvAoa6geR+DL4Ep8n214omnGfMp0Jev+d+MEH qnIMsiQjx6KUfSlcx1tlZ/mlKXYfQ3h4pt5UK5+1NlNrrXFCvGWgag0PC/jAHx/p i9x5mS8TRCw= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18F638D8A5; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:44:28 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.74.119.39]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 987B88D8A3; Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:44:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Christian Couder Cc: Johannes Schindelin , git , Christian Couder , Miriam Rubio Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] bisect: don't use invalid oid as rev when starting References: <20200923170915.21748-1-chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <20200924060344.15541-1-chriscool@tuxfamily.org> Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:44:26 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Christian Couder's message of "Thu, 24 Sep 2020 13:08:01 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 35E3752E-FE85-11EA-9E50-2F5D23BA3BAF-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Christian Couder writes: >> > +test_expect_success 'bisect start without -- uses unknown arg as path restriction' ' >> >> To avoid the overly long line (and also to re-use existing naming >> conventions), I replaced "path restrictions" by "pathspecs" here. What do >> you think? > > It's not a huge issue, but I tend to prefer using "restrictions" > because the tests that check that these arguments are used properly > are called "restricting bisection on one dir" and "restricting > bisection on one dir and a file". So I feel that it keeps test names > more coherent. Hmph, but in the context of a sentence "use an arg as X", we should try to pick a well-known word to describe various Git arguments for X, no? The one you are using, in order to filter the set of commits involved in the operation to those that touch specific set of paths, already has its own established name and the word is "pathspec". So...?