{"thread":{"id":"10274","subject":"[PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","startedAt":"2007-10-14T12:28:26Z","lastAt":"2007-10-19T02:49:39Z","messageCount":37,"participants":["Christian Couder","Wincent Colaiuta","David Kastrup","Andreas Ericsson","René Scharfe","Johannes Schindelin","Marius Storm-Olsen","David Symonds","Johan Herland","Geert Bosch","Shawn O. Pearce","Robin Rosenberg","Karl Hasselström","Linus Torvalds"],"isPatch":true,"patchVersion":1,"patchTotal":7},"messages":[{"id":"55703","messageId":"20071014142826.8caa0a9f.chriscool@tuxfamily.org","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"[PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"chriscool@tuxfamily.org","sentAt":"2007-10-14T12:28:26Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-14T12:28:26Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"Hi all,\n\nHere is my bisect dunno patch series again.\nThe changes since last time are the following:\n\n[PATCH 1/7] rev-list: implement --bisect-all\n[PATCH 2/7] Bisect: fix some white spaces and empty lines breakages.\n\n-> No change.\n\n[PATCH 3/7] Bisect: implement \"bisect dunno\" to mark untestable revisions.\n\n-> Added dunno stuff in \"bisect_replay\" that I had forgotten.\n-> Use \"bisect_write_good\" and \"bisect_write_bad\" in \"bisect_replay\" \nwhile at it.\n\n[PATCH 4/7] Bisect: factorise \"bisect_write_*\" functions.\n[PATCH 5/7] Bisect: factorise some logging into \"bisect_write\".\n[PATCH 6/7] Bisect: factorise \"bisect_{bad,good,dunno}\" into \"bisect_state\".\n\n-> Some new factorisation and clean up work.\n\n[PATCH 7/7] Bisect: add \"bisect dunno\" to the documentation.\n\n-> Document \"bisect dunno\" and fix some short usage descriptions.\n\nRegards,\nChristian.\n"},{"id":"55712","messageId":"F32B0EEF-496C-4D6D-BD9A-B6A0C04E0EE3@wincent.com","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"20071014142826.8caa0a9f.chriscool@tuxfamily.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Wincent Colaiuta","fromEmail":"win@wincent.com","sentAt":"2007-10-14T12:43:39Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-14T12:43:39Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"greg@hurrell.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7074?v=4"},"body":"El 14/10/2007, a las 14:28, Christian Couder escribió:\n\n> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.\n\nGood work on the series, Christian, but don't you think that \n\"unknown\" would sound a little bit better than \"dunno\"? For people \nwho don't speak English as a second language \"dunno\" might not be \nimmediately clear.\n\nCheers,\nWincent\n"},{"id":"55714","messageId":"D59AD700-7F5A-4902-9448-95B9E72D6F33@wincent.com","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"F32B0EEF-496C-4D6D-BD9A-B6A0C04E0EE3@wincent.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Wincent Colaiuta","fromEmail":"win@wincent.com","sentAt":"2007-10-14T12:59:35Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-14T12:59:35Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"greg@hurrell.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7074?v=4"},"body":"El 14/10/2007, a las 14:43, Wincent Colaiuta escribió:\n\n> El 14/10/2007, a las 14:28, Christian Couder escribió:\n>\n>> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.\n>\n> Good work on the series, Christian, but don't you think that \n> \"unknown\" would sound a little bit better than \"dunno\"? For people \n> who don't speak English as a second language \"dunno\" might not be \n> immediately clear.\n\nDoh, I meant to say \"people who don't speak English as a *first* \nlanguage\".\n\nCheers,\nWincent\n"},{"id":"55715","messageId":"854pgtonp5.fsf@lola.goethe.zz","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"F32B0EEF-496C-4D6D-BD9A-B6A0C04E0EE3@wincent.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2007-10-14T13:00:54Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-14T13:00:54Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Wincent Colaiuta writes:\n\n> El 14/10/2007, a las 14:28, Christian Couder escribió:\n>\n>> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.\n>\n> Good work on the series, Christian, but don't you think that\n> \"unknown\" would sound a little bit better than \"dunno\"? For people\n> who don't speak English as a second language \"dunno\" might not be\n> immediately clear.\n\n\"undecided\"?\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum\n"},{"id":"55724","messageId":"85d4vhn35z.fsf@lola.goethe.zz","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"200710141709.51579.chriscool@tuxfamily.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2007-10-14T15:09:44Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-14T15:09:44Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Christian Couder writes:\n\n> Le dimanche 14 octobre 2007, David Kastrup a écrit :\n>> Wincent Colaiuta writes:\n>> > El 14/10/2007, a las 14:28, Christian Couder escribió:\n>> >> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.\n>> >\n>> > Good work on the series, Christian, but don't you think that\n>> > \"unknown\" would sound a little bit better than \"dunno\"? For people\n>> > who don't speak English as a second language \"dunno\" might not be\n>> > immediately clear.\n>>\n>> \"undecided\"?\n>\n> I choosed \"dunno\" because that was what Dscho suggested in this thread:\n>\n> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/53584/focus=53595\n\nI would think that tongue-in-cheek. In case it was serious, I'd\nconsider it one of those cases where it would make good sense to\noverrule the geek penchant for quirkiness.\n\nJust think about the nuisance of finding adequate translations in\ni18n: \"Woaßnet\", \"Eh?\", \"Chepas\" etc.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum\n"},{"id":"55723","messageId":"200710141709.51579.chriscool@tuxfamily.org","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"854pgtonp5.fsf@lola.goethe.zz","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"chriscool@tuxfamily.org","sentAt":"2007-10-14T15:09:51Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-14T15:09:51Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"Le dimanche 14 octobre 2007, David Kastrup a écrit :\n> Wincent Colaiuta writes:\n> > El 14/10/2007, a las 14:28, Christian Couder escribió:\n> >> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.\n> >\n> > Good work on the series, Christian, but don't you think that\n> > \"unknown\" would sound a little bit better than \"dunno\"? For people\n> > who don't speak English as a second language \"dunno\" might not be\n> > immediately clear.\n>\n> \"undecided\"?\n\nI choosed \"dunno\" because that was what Dscho suggested in this thread:\n\nhttp://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/53584/focus=53595\n\nIt seems to me short and understandable at the same time.\n\nMore meaningfull would be \"untestable\" or \"cannottest\" or \"canttest\" but \nit's much longer, while \"good\" and \"bad\" are short.\n\nChristian.\n"},{"id":"55725","messageId":"4712323B.6060902@op5.se","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"85d4vhn35z.fsf@lola.goethe.zz","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Andreas Ericsson","fromEmail":"ae@op5.se","sentAt":"2007-10-14T15:14:03Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-14T15:14:03Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"ae@op5.se","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/426e89595c75a8f5252dd0c989e5fabe5bcac616e68557427ad9aef6b0ca342a?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"David Kastrup wrote:\n> Christian Couder writes:\n> \n>> Le dimanche 14 octobre 2007, David Kastrup a écrit :\n>>> Wincent Colaiuta writes:\n>>>> El 14/10/2007, a las 14:28, Christian Couder escribió:\n>>>>> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.\n>>>> Good work on the series, Christian, but don't you think that\n>>>> \"unknown\" would sound a little bit better than \"dunno\"? For people\n>>>> who don't speak English as a second language \"dunno\" might not be\n>>>> immediately clear.\n>>> \"undecided\"?\n>> I choosed \"dunno\" because that was what Dscho suggested in this thread:\n>>\n>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/53584/focus=53595\n> \n> I would think that tongue-in-cheek. In case it was serious, I'd\n> consider it one of those cases where it would make good sense to\n> overrule the geek penchant for quirkiness.\n> \n> Just think about the nuisance of finding adequate translations in\n> i18n: \"Woaßnet\", \"Eh?\", \"Chepas\" etc.\n> \n\nWell, that won't be a problem, as commands and their subcommands and\noptions aren't translated.\n\n-- \nAndreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se\nOP5 AB www.op5.se\nTel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231\n"},{"id":"55728","messageId":"4712400C.2080900@lsrfire.ath.cx","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"200710141709.51579.chriscool@tuxfamily.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"René Scharfe","fromEmail":"rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx","sentAt":"2007-10-14T16:13:00Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-14T16:13:00Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"l.s.r@web.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/26122331?v=4"},"body":"Christian Couder schrieb:\n> Le dimanche 14 octobre 2007, David Kastrup a écrit :\n>> Wincent Colaiuta writes:\n>>> El 14/10/2007, a las 14:28, Christian Couder escribió:\n>>>> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.\n>>> Good work on the series, Christian, but don't you think that\n>>> \"unknown\" would sound a little bit better than \"dunno\"? For people\n>>> who don't speak English as a second language \"dunno\" might not be\n>>> immediately clear.\n>> \"undecided\"?\n> \n> I choosed \"dunno\" because that was what Dscho suggested in this thread:\n> \n> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/53584/focus=53595\n> \n> It seems to me short and understandable at the same time.\n> \n> More meaningfull would be \"untestable\" or \"cannottest\" or \"canttest\" but \n> it's much longer, while \"good\" and \"bad\" are short.\n\nUgly? Neutral?\n\nRené\n"},{"id":"55730","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0710141715470.25221@racer.site","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"20071014142826.8caa0a9f.chriscool@tuxfamily.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-10-14T16:16:32Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-14T16:16:32Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Christian Couder wrote:\n\n> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.\n> The changes since last time are the following:\n> \n> [PATCH 1/7] rev-list: implement --bisect-all\n> [PATCH 2/7] Bisect: fix some white spaces and empty lines breakages.\n> \n> -> No change.\n> \n> [PATCH 3/7] Bisect: implement \"bisect dunno\" to mark untestable revisions.\n> \n> -> Added dunno stuff in \"bisect_replay\" that I had forgotten.\n> -> Use \"bisect_write_good\" and \"bisect_write_bad\" in \"bisect_replay\" \n> while at it.\n> \n> [PATCH 4/7] Bisect: factorise \"bisect_write_*\" functions.\n> [PATCH 5/7] Bisect: factorise some logging into \"bisect_write\".\n> [PATCH 6/7] Bisect: factorise \"bisect_{bad,good,dunno}\" into \"bisect_state\".\n> \n> -> Some new factorisation and clean up work.\n> \n> [PATCH 7/7] Bisect: add \"bisect dunno\" to the documentation.\n> \n> -> Document \"bisect dunno\" and fix some short usage descriptions.\n\nThanks for doing this. I think that especially the factorisation adds \ntremendously to the readibility.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"55731","messageId":"85y7e5ll38.fsf@lola.goethe.zz","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"4712400C.2080900@lsrfire.ath.cx","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2007-10-14T16:25:31Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-14T16:25:31Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"René Scharfe writes:\n\n> Christian Couder schrieb:\n>> \n>> I choosed \"dunno\" because that was what Dscho suggested in this thread:\n>> \n>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/53584/focus=53595\n>> \n>> It seems to me short and understandable at the same time.\n>> \n>> More meaningfull would be \"untestable\" or \"cannottest\" or\n>> \"canttest\" but it's much longer, while \"good\" and \"bad\" are short.\n>\n> Ugly? Neutral?\n\n\"Ugly\" has a certain charm to it but would probably not translate\nwell. \"Limbo\" would be another such candidate, probably with better\ntranslatability. But while some of those have some geeky appeal, I\nreally think something reasonably plain like \"undecided\" would be\nbetter in the long run.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum\n"},{"id":"55734","messageId":"522E90CF-FC15-472F-B0A8-91C310CAF9BF@wincent.com","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"85y7e5ll38.fsf@lola.goethe.zz","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Wincent Colaiuta","fromEmail":"win@wincent.com","sentAt":"2007-10-14T16:35:57Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-14T16:35:57Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"greg@hurrell.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7074?v=4"},"body":"El 14/10/2007, a las 18:25, David Kastrup escribió:\n\n> René Scharfe writes:\n>\n>> Christian Couder schrieb:\n>>>\n>>> I choosed \"dunno\" because that was what Dscho suggested in this \n>>> thread:\n>>>\n>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/53584/ \n>>> focus=53595\n>>>\n>>> It seems to me short and understandable at the same time.\n>>>\n>>> More meaningfull would be \"untestable\" or \"cannottest\" or\n>>> \"canttest\" but it's much longer, while \"good\" and \"bad\" are short.\n>>\n>> Ugly? Neutral?\n>\n> \"Ugly\" has a certain charm to it but would probably not translate\n> well. \"Limbo\" would be another such candidate, probably with better\n> translatability. But while some of those have some geeky appeal, I\n> really think something reasonably plain like \"undecided\" would be\n> better in the long run.\n\n\"undecided\" sounds good to me. It should be clear to non-native \nspeakers of English (at least, clearer than \"dunno\").\n\n\n Another problem with \"dunno\" is that it might come across as a bit \nunprofessional due to its informality. Yes, you'll find it in most \ndictionaries, but always with a qualifier of \"slang\", \"colloquial\", \n\"casual\", \"pronunciation spelling\" or similar.\n\n\nCheers,\nWincent\n"},{"id":"55746","messageId":"471250BC.7070307@trolltech.com","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"522E90CF-FC15-472F-B0A8-91C310CAF9BF@wincent.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Marius Storm-Olsen","fromEmail":"marius@trolltech.com","sentAt":"2007-10-14T17:24:12Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-14T17:24:12Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"marius@trolltech.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/a40071d8f651862c6ab10bd7996f0ad84d94f06c0399de9e3fa4f06beb390a71?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"Wincent Colaiuta said the following on 14.10.2007 18:35:\n> El 14/10/2007, a las 18:25, David Kastrup escribió:\n>> René Scharfe writes:\n>> \n>>> Christian Couder schrieb:\n>>>> I choosed \"dunno\" because that was what Dscho suggested in\n>>>> this thread:\n>>>> \n>>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/53584/\n>>>> focus=53595\n>>>> \n>>>> It seems to me short and understandable at the same time.\n>>>> \n>>>> More meaningfull would be \"untestable\" or \"cannottest\" or \n>>>> \"canttest\" but it's much longer, while \"good\" and \"bad\" are\n>>>> short.\n>>> Ugly? Neutral?\n>> \"Ugly\" has a certain charm to it but would probably not translate\n>> well. \"Limbo\" would be another such candidate, probably with\n>> better translatability. But while some of those have some geeky\n>> appeal, I really think something reasonably plain like\n>> \"undecided\" would be better in the long run.\n> \n> \"undecided\" sounds good to me. It should be clear to non-native \n> speakers of English (at least, clearer than \"dunno\").\n\nWhat about just \"unknown\"?\n\n-- \n.marius\n\n"},{"id":"55747","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0710141824390.25221@racer.site","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"200710141709.51579.chriscool@tuxfamily.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-10-14T17:25:33Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-14T17:25:33Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Christian Couder wrote:\n\n> Le dimanche 14 octobre 2007, David Kastrup a ?crit :\n> > Wincent Colaiuta writes:\n> > > El 14/10/2007, a las 14:28, Christian Couder escribi?:\n> > >> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.\n> > >\n> > > Good work on the series, Christian, but don't you think that\n> > > \"unknown\" would sound a little bit better than \"dunno\"? For people\n> > > who don't speak English as a second language \"dunno\" might not be\n> > > immediately clear.\n> >\n> > \"undecided\"?\n> \n> I choosed \"dunno\" because that was what Dscho suggested in this thread:\n> \n> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/53584/focus=53595\n> \n> It seems to me short and understandable at the same time.\n> \n> More meaningfull would be \"untestable\" or \"cannottest\" or \"canttest\" but \n> it's much longer, while \"good\" and \"bad\" are short.\n\nI guess this discussion means that nobody has anything technical to argue \nabout. IOW your patch series is good...\n\n;-)\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"55751","messageId":"85d4vhlh8y.fsf@lola.goethe.zz","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"471250BC.7070307@trolltech.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2007-10-14T17:48:29Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-14T17:48:29Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Marius Storm-Olsen writes:\n\n> Wincent Colaiuta said the following on 14.10.2007 18:35:\n>\n>> \"undecided\" sounds good to me. It should be clear to non-native\n>> speakers of English (at least, clearer than \"dunno\").\n>\n> What about just \"unknown\"?\n\nI tend to nitpick to the degree of silliness when my own suggestions\nare concerned, but \"unknown\" sounds to me like the state _before_ the\ntest. If a person says he is \"undecided\" about something that means\nthat he _has_ thought about it already. \"Undecidable\" might bring\nthis distinction across more strongly, but it is a more complicated\nword and it insinuates that it is _impossible_ to come to a decision\nregardless of the spent effort.\n\n\"unknown\" clearly is much better than \"dunno\" though even if my own\nfavorite would be \"undecided\".\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum\n"},{"id":"55817","messageId":"471302D2.6010405@trolltech.com","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"85d4vhlh8y.fsf@lola.goethe.zz","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Marius Storm-Olsen","fromEmail":"marius@trolltech.com","sentAt":"2007-10-15T06:04:02Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-15T06:04:02Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"marius@trolltech.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/a40071d8f651862c6ab10bd7996f0ad84d94f06c0399de9e3fa4f06beb390a71?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"David Kastrup said the following on 14.10.2007 19:48:\n> Marius Storm-Olsen writes:\n> \n>> Wincent Colaiuta said the following on 14.10.2007 18:35:\n>>\n>>> \"undecided\" sounds good to me. It should be clear to non-native\n>>> speakers of English (at least, clearer than \"dunno\").\n>> What about just \"unknown\"?\n> \n> I tend to nitpick to the degree of silliness when my own suggestions\n> are concerned, but \"unknown\" sounds to me like the state _before_ the\n> test. If a person says he is \"undecided\" about something that means\n> that he _has_ thought about it already. \"Undecidable\" might bring\n> this distinction across more strongly, but it is a more complicated\n> word and it insinuates that it is _impossible_ to come to a decision\n> regardless of the spent effort.\n> \n> \"unknown\" clearly is much better than \"dunno\" though even if my own\n> favorite would be \"undecided\".\n\nWhat then about a good'ol programming favorite, \"void\"? :-)\n\nI agree that \"unknown\" might be a state even _before_ a person has \ndetermined if a case is good or bad (same for 'dunno' actually: \"- Do \nyou know if it works? - I dunno yet\") When I think more about it, I \nreally like \"void\"..\n\n\"Argh, this test is void, because someone messed with it\"\n\"We can't make heads or tails of this one, so it must be void\"\n\n-- \n.marius\n\n"},{"id":"55820","messageId":"ee77f5c20710142315j192b9f65m22d7980769a46cec@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"471302D2.6010405@trolltech.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"David Symonds","fromEmail":"dsymonds@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-10-15T06:15:19Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-15T06:15:19Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"dsymonds@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/b22f5051cbfc11836e36cf7a690e6cde4e225d835e13295ff98d15c7a9ee3c0f?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On 15/10/2007, Marius Storm-Olsen wrote:\n> David Kastrup said the following on 14.10.2007 19:48:\n> >\n> > \"unknown\" clearly is much better than \"dunno\" though even if my own\n> > favorite would be \"undecided\".\n>\n> What then about a good'ol programming favorite, \"void\"? :-)\n\n\"skip\"? That would make semantic sense, right?\n\n\nDave.\n"},{"id":"55822","messageId":"200710150902.52653.johan@herland.net","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"ee77f5c20710142315j192b9f65m22d7980769a46cec@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Johan Herland","fromEmail":"johan@herland.net","sentAt":"2007-10-15T07:02:52Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-15T07:02:52Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johan@herland.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/547031?v=4"},"body":"On Monday 15 October 2007, David Symonds wrote:\n> On 15/10/2007, Marius Storm-Olsen wrote:\n> > David Kastrup said the following on 14.10.2007 19:48:\n> > >\n> > > \"unknown\" clearly is much better than \"dunno\" though even if my own\n> > > favorite would be \"undecided\".\n> >\n> > What then about a good'ol programming favorite, \"void\"? :-)\n> \n> \"skip\"? That would make semantic sense, right?\n\n...or we could go all spaghetti western, and call it \"ugly\".\n\n(as in \"git-bisect [the , the and the ]\")\n\n\nHave fun! :)\n\n...Johan\n\n-- \nJohan Herland, \nwww.herland.net\n"},{"id":"55831","messageId":"86odf0pywz.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"471302D2.6010405@trolltech.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2007-10-15T08:25:32Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-15T08:25:32Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Marius Storm-Olsen writes:\n\n> David Kastrup said the following on 14.10.2007 19:48:\n>> Marius Storm-Olsen writes:\n>>\n>>> Wincent Colaiuta said the following on 14.10.2007 18:35:\n>>>\n>>>> \"undecided\" sounds good to me. It should be clear to non-native\n>>>> speakers of English (at least, clearer than \"dunno\").\n>>> What about just \"unknown\"?\n>>\n>> I tend to nitpick to the degree of silliness when my own suggestions\n>> are concerned, but \"unknown\" sounds to me like the state _before_ the\n>> test. If a person says he is \"undecided\" about something that means\n>> that he _has_ thought about it already. \"Undecidable\" might bring\n>> this distinction across more strongly, but it is a more complicated\n>> word and it insinuates that it is _impossible_ to come to a decision\n>> regardless of the spent effort.\n>>\n>> \"unknown\" clearly is much better than \"dunno\" though even if my own\n>> favorite would be \"undecided\".\n>\n> What then about a good'ol programming favorite, \"void\"? :-)\n\nHuh? void is a type, not a value. void would insinuate that it was\nwrong to ask the question, not that its answer could not be\ndetermined.\n\n> I agree that \"unknown\" might be a state even _before_ a person has\n> determined if a case is good or bad (same for 'dunno' actually: \"-\n> Do you know if it works? - I dunno yet\") When I think more about it,\n> I really like \"void\"..\n\nWell, I don't.\n\nBasically, I would say that this seems to be so much a matter of\npersonal taste that we should at this point of time leave the decision\nof how to pick this to Junio. Whether this gets resolved by vote or\nby authority: seems like the fine lines are no longer worth the time\ninvested in discussing them.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"55838","messageId":"7EDF99A4-00BD-4F89-A31F-DCA33723CDD5@wincent.com","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"200710150902.52653.johan@herland.net","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Wincent Colaiuta","fromEmail":"win@wincent.com","sentAt":"2007-10-15T09:31:55Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-15T09:31:55Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"greg@hurrell.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/7074?v=4"},"body":"El 15/10/2007, a las 9:02, Johan Herland escribió:\n\n> On Monday 15 October 2007, David Symonds wrote:\n>> On 15/10/2007, Marius Storm-Olsen wrote:\n>>> David Kastrup said the following on 14.10.2007 19:48:\n>>>>\n>>>> \"unknown\" clearly is much better than \"dunno\" though even if my own\n>>>> favorite would be \"undecided\".\n>>>\n>>> What then about a good'ol programming favorite, \"void\"? :-)\n>>\n>> \"skip\"? That would make semantic sense, right?\n>\n> ...or we could go all spaghetti western, and call it \"ugly\".\n>\n> (as in \"git-bisect [the , the and the ]\")\n\n\n Yes, it's funny, but I don't think an SCM interface is a place for \njokes or puns. Git already has one big tongue-in-cheek attribute: \nit's name, so let's leave it at that.\n\n\nCheers,\nWincent\n"},{"id":"55855","messageId":"ee77f5c20710150453g1220d968k9a23f2b8329a67db@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"7EDF99A4-00BD-4F89-A31F-DCA33723CDD5@wincent.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"David Symonds","fromEmail":"dsymonds@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-10-15T11:53:29Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-15T11:53:29Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"dsymonds@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/b22f5051cbfc11836e36cf7a690e6cde4e225d835e13295ff98d15c7a9ee3c0f?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On 15/10/2007, Wincent Colaiuta wrote:\n> El 15/10/2007, a las 9:02, Johan Herland escribió:\n>\n> > On Monday 15 October 2007, David Symonds wrote:\n> >> On 15/10/2007, Marius Storm-Olsen wrote:\n> >>> David Kastrup said the following on 14.10.2007 19:48:\n> >>>>\n> >>>> \"unknown\" clearly is much better than \"dunno\" though even if my own\n> >>>> favorite would be \"undecided\".\n> >>>\n> >>> What then about a good'ol programming favorite, \"void\"? :-)\n> >>\n> >> \"skip\"? That would make semantic sense, right?\n> >\n> > ...or we could go all spaghetti western, and call it \"ugly\".\n> >\n> > (as in \"git-bisect [the , the and the ]\")\n>\n> \n> Yes, it's funny, but I don't think an SCM interface is a place for\n> jokes or puns. Git already has one big tongue-in-cheek attribute:\n> it's name, so let's leave it at that.\n> \n\nThat's also why I suggested \"skip\"; you might not be able to test a\nparticular commit, but you might also not *want* to test a particular\ncommit for some reason.\n\n\nDave.\n"},{"id":"55909","messageId":"0C82FD96-2CF9-4E66-91EB-DBC2CFF003E8@adacore.com","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"ee77f5c20710150453g1220d968k9a23f2b8329a67db@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Geert Bosch","fromEmail":"bosch@adacore.com","sentAt":"2007-10-15T20:33:47Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-15T20:33:47Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"bosch@adacore.com","avatar":null},"body":"On Oct 15, 2007, at 13:53, David Symonds wrote:\n> That's also why I suggested \"skip\"; you might not be able to test a\n> particular commit, but you might also not *want* to test a particular\n> commit for some reason.\n\nSkip seems a great choice: it directly expresses the wish to\nnot consider a certain commit. The reason is unimportant.\n"},{"id":"55949","messageId":"85ve98gl57.fsf@lola.goethe.zz","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"0C82FD96-2CF9-4E66-91EB-DBC2CFF003E8@adacore.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2007-10-15T20:47:48Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-15T20:47:48Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Geert Bosch writes:\n\n> On Oct 15, 2007, at 13:53, David Symonds wrote:\n>> That's also why I suggested \"skip\"; you might not be able to test a\n>> particular commit, but you might also not *want* to test a particular\n>> commit for some reason.\n>\n> Skip seems a great choice: it directly expresses the wish to\n> not consider a certain commit. The reason is unimportant.\n\nBut it is an _action_, while \"good\" and \"bad\" are properties.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum\n"},{"id":"55937","messageId":"200710160541.45481.chriscool@tuxfamily.org","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"ee77f5c20710142315j192b9f65m22d7980769a46cec@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"chriscool@tuxfamily.org","sentAt":"2007-10-16T03:41:44Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-16T03:41:44Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"Le lundi 15 octobre 2007, David Symonds a écrit :\n> On 15/10/2007, Marius Storm-Olsen wrote:\n> > David Kastrup said the following on 14.10.2007 19:48:\n> > > \"unknown\" clearly is much better than \"dunno\" though even if my own\n> > > favorite would be \"undecided\".\n> >\n> > What then about a good'ol programming favorite, \"void\"? :-)\n>\n> \"skip\"? That would make semantic sense, right?\n\nYeah, or \"avoid\".\n\nChristian.\n"},{"id":"55955","messageId":"ee77f5c20710152307n48431a6eu5dc95ee504968e4e@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"85ve98gl57.fsf@lola.goethe.zz","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"David Symonds","fromEmail":"dsymonds@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-10-16T06:07:58Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-16T06:07:58Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"dsymonds@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/b22f5051cbfc11836e36cf7a690e6cde4e225d835e13295ff98d15c7a9ee3c0f?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On 16/10/2007, David Kastrup wrote:\n> Geert Bosch writes:\n>\n> > On Oct 15, 2007, at 13:53, David Symonds wrote:\n> >> That's also why I suggested \"skip\"; you might not be able to test a\n> >> particular commit, but you might also not *want* to test a particular\n> >> commit for some reason.\n> >\n> > Skip seems a great choice: it directly expresses the wish to\n> > not consider a certain commit. The reason is unimportant.\n>\n> But it is an _action_, while \"good\" and \"bad\" are properties.\n\n\"skipped\", then. Either way, something like this has got to be much\nbetter than \"dunno\".\n\n\nDave.\n"},{"id":"55958","messageId":"856417h9cj.fsf@lola.goethe.zz","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"ee77f5c20710152307n48431a6eu5dc95ee504968e4e@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2007-10-16T06:17:16Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-16T06:17:16Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"\"David Symonds\" writes:\n\n> On 16/10/2007, David Kastrup wrote:\n>> Geert Bosch writes:\n>>\n>> > On Oct 15, 2007, at 13:53, David Symonds wrote:\n>> >> That's also why I suggested \"skip\"; you might not be able to test a\n>> >> particular commit, but you might also not *want* to test a particular\n>> >> commit for some reason.\n>> >\n>> > Skip seems a great choice: it directly expresses the wish to\n>> > not consider a certain commit. The reason is unimportant.\n>>\n>> But it is an _action_, while \"good\" and \"bad\" are properties.\n>\n> \"skipped\", then.\n\n\"good\" and \"bad\" are descriptive. \"to be skipped\" would be necessary\nto fit it.\n\n> Either way, something like this has got to be much better than\n> \"dunno\".\n\n\"undecided\" still has my vote, and I could live with \"unknown\".\nEverything that has been proposed since then is, in my opinion,\nstrictly worse.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum\n"},{"id":"56217","messageId":"20071017073538.GB13801@spearce.org","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"20071014142826.8caa0a9f.chriscool@tuxfamily.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Shawn O. Pearce","fromEmail":"spearce@spearce.org","sentAt":"2007-10-17T07:35:38Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-17T07:35:38Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"spearce@spearce.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/34844?v=4"},"body":"Christian Couder wrote:\n> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.\n> The changes since last time are the following:\n\nI now have this series queued in my pu branch. It passes the tests\nit comes with, and doesn't appear to break anything, but apparently\nthere is also still some debate about what a dunno should be called\n(\"unknown\", \"void\", \"ugly\", \"dunno\", \"skip\" ...).\n\n-- \nShawn.\n"},{"id":"56257","messageId":"200710171810.56215.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"856417h9cj.fsf@lola.goethe.zz","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Robin Rosenberg","fromEmail":"robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com","sentAt":"2007-10-17T16:10:55Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-17T16:10:55Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"robin.rosenberg@dewire.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/46357?v=4"},"body":"tisdag 16 oktober 2007 skrev David Kastrup:\n> \"David Symonds\" writes:\n> \n> > On 16/10/2007, David Kastrup wrote:\n> >> Geert Bosch writes:\n> >>\n> >> > On Oct 15, 2007, at 13:53, David Symonds wrote:\n> >> >> That's also why I suggested \"skip\"; you might not be able to test a\n> >> >> particular commit, but you might also not *want* to test a particular\n> >> >> commit for some reason.\n> >> >\n> >> > Skip seems a great choice: it directly expresses the wish to\n> >> > not consider a certain commit. The reason is unimportant.\n> >>\n> >> But it is an _action_, while \"good\" and \"bad\" are properties.\n> >\n> > \"skipped\", then.\n> \n> \"good\" and \"bad\" are descriptive. \"to be skipped\" would be necessary\n> to fit it.\n\nYet another very short word: void.\n\nI'm thinking about ticket copies that sometimes are marked \"void\" so you cannot use it.\n\n-- robin\n"},{"id":"56260","messageId":"86myuhg1nb.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"200710171810.56215.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"David Kastrup","fromEmail":"dak@gnu.org","sentAt":"2007-10-17T16:13:28Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-17T16:13:28Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"dak@gnu.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/52141349?v=4"},"body":"Robin Rosenberg writes:\n\n> tisdag 16 oktober 2007 skrev David Kastrup:\n>> \"David Symonds\" writes:\n>> \n>> > On 16/10/2007, David Kastrup wrote:\n>> >> Geert Bosch writes:\n>> >>\n>> >> > On Oct 15, 2007, at 13:53, David Symonds wrote:\n>> >> >> That's also why I suggested \"skip\"; you might not be able to test a\n>> >> >> particular commit, but you might also not *want* to test a particular\n>> >> >> commit for some reason.\n>> >> >\n>> >> > Skip seems a great choice: it directly expresses the wish to\n>> >> > not consider a certain commit. The reason is unimportant.\n>> >>\n>> >> But it is an _action_, while \"good\" and \"bad\" are properties.\n>> >\n>> > \"skipped\", then.\n>> \n>> \"good\" and \"bad\" are descriptive. \"to be skipped\" would be necessary\n>> to fit it.\n>\n> Yet another very short word: void.\n\nIt is not \"yet another\": I already explained why it does not fit.\n\n-- \nDavid Kastrup\n"},{"id":"56259","messageId":"20071017161749.GA17985@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"200710171810.56215.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Karl Hasselström","fromEmail":"kha@treskal.com","sentAt":"2007-10-17T16:17:49Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-17T16:17:49Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"kha@treskal.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/f0120c734b5279b345075a28521e1ac66acb20c9913ffe9bf6ae97e53f7f3f13?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On 2007-10-17 18:10:55 +0200, Robin Rosenberg wrote:\n\n> Yet another very short word: void.\n\nMy vote is for \"supercalifragilisticexpialidocious\". It's clearly\nsuperior to the 1500 other suggestions in this thread.\n\n-- \nKarl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com\n www.treskal.com/kalle\n"},{"id":"56272","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0710171906280.25221@racer.site","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"20071017073538.GB13801@spearce.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-10-17T18:10:37Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-17T18:10:37Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:\n\n> Christian Couder wrote:\n> > Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.\n> > The changes since last time are the following:\n> \n> I now have this series queued in my pu branch. It passes the tests\n> it comes with, and doesn't appear to break anything, but apparently\n> there is also still some debate about what a dunno should be called\n> (\"unknown\", \"void\", \"ugly\", \"dunno\", \"skip\" ...).\n\nAFAICT these are all bikeshed painting arguments, not technical arguments. \nI was initially opposed to having --bisect-all, wanting to have \n--bisect-dunno ...\n\nBut in the end, the people doing the work decide, and therefore I am fine \nwith --bisect-all, especially since it seems clean enough for me.\n\nAs for all those \"dunno is no English\"... I'd first merge the technical \npart (i.e. what you have now in pu), and then let the discussion about \nwhich synonyms to choose continue, until a consensus is formed about other \nnames (if there is a consensus at all!).\n\nIMHO there is no reason to hold of the fine work of Christian, just \nbecause there are non-technical arguments still in the air.\n\nI want bisect dunno. Even if there is another name later.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"56282","messageId":"20071017192329.GA20609@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"20071017161749.GA17985@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Karl Hasselström","fromEmail":"kha@treskal.com","sentAt":"2007-10-17T19:23:29Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-17T19:23:29Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"kha@treskal.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/f0120c734b5279b345075a28521e1ac66acb20c9913ffe9bf6ae97e53f7f3f13?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On 2007-10-17 18:17:49 +0200, Karl Hasselström wrote:\n\n> On 2007-10-17 18:10:55 +0200, Robin Rosenberg wrote:\n>\n> > Yet another very short word: void.\n>\n> My vote is for \"supercalifragilisticexpialidocious\". It's clearly\n> superior to the 1500 other suggestions in this thread.\n\n(Not intended as an attack on this particular suggestion, by the way.\nSorry if it sounded a bit harsh.)\n\n-- \nKarl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com\n www.treskal.com/kalle\n"},{"id":"56305","messageId":"alpine.LFD.0.999.0710171553580.26902@woody.linux-foundation.org","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"85ve98gl57.fsf@lola.goethe.zz","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Linus Torvalds","fromEmail":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","sentAt":"2007-10-17T22:59:04Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-17T22:59:04Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1024025?v=4"},"body":"\n\nOn Mon, 15 Oct 2007, David Kastrup wrote:\n\n> Geert Bosch writes:\n> \n> > On Oct 15, 2007, at 13:53, David Symonds wrote:\n> >> That's also why I suggested \"skip\"; you might not be able to test a\n> >> particular commit, but you might also not *want* to test a particular\n> >> commit for some reason.\n> >\n> > Skip seems a great choice: it directly expresses the wish to\n> > not consider a certain commit. The reason is unimportant.\n> \n> But it is an _action_, while \"good\" and \"bad\" are properties.\n\nWell, this has been debated to death, but I actually think that \"skip\" is \na good choice, exactly because it's an action.\n\n\"good\" and \"bad\" do indeed describe properties of the commit, and are used \nto describe the state of the tree in question. In contrast, \"git bisect \nskip\" says not somethign about the state of that tree - it talks about \nwhat we should *do* with that tree.\n\nIOW, I think \"git bisect skip\" in some sense has more to do with an action \nlike \"git bisect start\", than with \"good\" or \"bad\". \n\n(Yes, \"good\" and \"bad\" have an action associated with them too - namely to \nstart the next bisection event - but they are not named according to the \naction they cause, but because they describe the tree state)\n\n\t\t\tLinus\n"},{"id":"56308","messageId":"200710180136.24090.chriscool@tuxfamily.org","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0710171906280.25221@racer.site","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Christian Couder","fromEmail":"chriscool@tuxfamily.org","sentAt":"2007-10-17T23:36:23Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-17T23:36:23Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"christian.couder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/208954?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nLe mercredi 17 octobre 2007, Johannes Schindelin a écrit :\n> Hi,\n>\n> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:\n> > Christian Couder wrote:\n> > > Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.\n> > > The changes since last time are the following:\n> >\n> > I now have this series queued in my pu branch. It passes the tests\n> > it comes with, and doesn't appear to break anything, but apparently\n> > there is also still some debate about what a dunno should be called\n> > (\"unknown\", \"void\", \"ugly\", \"dunno\", \"skip\" ...).\n>\n> AFAICT these are all bikeshed painting arguments, not technical\n> arguments. I was initially opposed to having --bisect-all, wanting to\n> have\n> --bisect-dunno ...\n>\n> But in the end, the people doing the work decide, and therefore I am fine\n> with --bisect-all, especially since it seems clean enough for me.\n>\n> As for all those \"dunno is no English\"... I'd first merge the technical\n> part (i.e. what you have now in pu), and then let the discussion about\n> which synonyms to choose continue, until a consensus is formed about\n> other names (if there is a consensus at all!).\n>\n> IMHO there is no reason to hold of the fine work of Christian,\n\nIt's also the fine work of Junio as he wrote most of \nthe \"rev-list --bisect-all\" patch.\n\n> just \n> because there are non-technical arguments still in the air.\n>\n> I want bisect dunno. Even if there is another name later.\n\nThanks for your kind words,\nChristian.\n"},{"id":"56312","messageId":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0710180045160.25221@racer.site","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"alpine.LFD.0.999.0710171553580.26902@woody.linux-foundation.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Johannes Schindelin","fromEmail":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","sentAt":"2007-10-17T23:46:28Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-17T23:46:28Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"johannes.schindelin@gmx.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/127790?v=4"},"body":"Hi,\n\nOn Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:\n\n> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, David Kastrup wrote:\n> \n> > Geert Bosch writes:\n> > \n> > > On Oct 15, 2007, at 13:53, David Symonds wrote:\n> > >> That's also why I suggested \"skip\"; you might not be able to test a \n> > >> particular commit, but you might also not *want* to test a \n> > >> particular commit for some reason.\n> > >\n> > > Skip seems a great choice: it directly expresses the wish to not \n> > > consider a certain commit. The reason is unimportant.\n> > \n> > But it is an _action_, while \"good\" and \"bad\" are properties.\n> \n> Well, this has been debated to death, but I actually think that \"skip\" \n> is a good choice, exactly because it's an action.\n\nCould we, _please_, first decide if the implementation has merits, and \njust apply it as is in that case? We can rename it whatever anybody likes \nlater, and we can paint the bikeshed brown if you want to.\n\nCiao,\nDscho\n"},{"id":"56314","messageId":"alpine.LFD.0.999.0710171654300.26902@woody.linux-foundation.org","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0710180045160.25221@racer.site","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Linus Torvalds","fromEmail":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","sentAt":"2007-10-17T23:59:03Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-17T23:59:03Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"torvalds@linux-foundation.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1024025?v=4"},"body":"\n\nOn Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> \n> Could we, _please_, first decide if the implementation has merits, and \n> just apply it as is in that case? We can rename it whatever anybody likes \n> later, and we can paint the bikeshed brown if you want to.\n\nI thought everybody really agreed that being able to skip commits that you \ncannot say good/bad about is a feature worth doing?\n\nRight now we actually have some docs in the man-page about doing that \navoidance manually, so it's not like it's debatable whether this issue \ncomes up. It most definitely does come up.\n\nDoes anybody really think it's not a good feature? And I've not seen \nnegative comments about the implementation either apart from some small \ndetails that I think got fixed up already (but maybe the complaints were \nall hidden by the shed color discussions ;)\n\n\t\t\tLinus\n"},{"id":"56318","messageId":"ee77f5c20710171824o33ea13aqe6a6c8aa096f56c7@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"Pine.LNX.4.64.0710180045160.25221@racer.site","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"David Symonds","fromEmail":"dsymonds@gmail.com","sentAt":"2007-10-18T01:24:08Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-18T01:24:08Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"dsymonds@gmail.com","avatar":"https://gravatar.com/avatar/b22f5051cbfc11836e36cf7a690e6cde4e225d835e13295ff98d15c7a9ee3c0f?d=mp&s=160"},"body":"On 18/10/2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote:\n> Hi,\n>\n> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:\n>\n> > Well, this has been debated to death, but I actually think that \"skip\"\n> > is a good choice, exactly because it's an action.\n>\n> Could we, _please_, first decide if the implementation has merits, and\n> just apply it as is in that case? We can rename it whatever anybody likes\n> later, and we can paint the bikeshed brown if you want to.\n\nI figured with something like this, it'd be a lot easier to get the\ncolour right first, since command UI is harder to repaint if it gets\nwidely adopted. Anyway, I think the patch itself is a very good\nfeature.\n\n\nDave.\n"},{"id":"56486","messageId":"20071019024939.GC14735@spearce.org","threadId":"10274","inReplyTo":"200710190449.49477.chriscool@tuxfamily.org","subject":"Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno","fromName":"Shawn O. Pearce","fromEmail":"spearce@spearce.org","sentAt":"2007-10-19T02:49:39Z","receivedAt":"2007-10-19T02:49:39Z","isPatch":true,"sender":{"key":"spearce@spearce.org","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/34844?v=4"},"body":"Christian Couder wrote:\n> Le jeudi 18 octobre 2007, Linus Torvalds a écrit :\n> > Well, this has been debated to death, but I actually think that \"skip\" is\n> > a good choice, exactly because it's an action.\n> \n> I will happily provide a new patch series with \"skip\" instead of \"dunno\" \n> if/when Shawn says that the discussion is over.\n\nI had concluded yesterday that this discussion is likely over and\nthat skip is the term we all were OK with. But unfortunately you\njust found out that vger is unable to read my mind and send such\nan email to the mailing list. :-)\n\nPlease make it so.\n\n-- \nShawn.\n"}]}