Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

From: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Date: Oct 17, 2007, 23:36 UTC
Message-ID: <200710180136.24090.chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710171906280.25221@racer.site>

Hi,

Le mercredi 17 octobre 2007, Johannes Schindelin a écrit :

Show 26 quoted lines

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
> > Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> 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 <ref>...
>
> 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,

It's also the fine work of Junio as he wrote most of the "rev-list --bisect-all" patch.

> just 
> because there are non-technical arguments still in the air.
>
> I want bisect dunno.  Even if there is another name later.

Thanks for your kind words, Christian.