Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
Date: Oct 16, 2007, 06:17 UTC
Message-ID: <856417h9cj.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>
In-Reply-To: <ee77f5c20710152307n48431a6eu5dc95ee504968e4e@mail.gmail.com>

"David Symonds" <dsymonds@gmail.com> writes:

Show 14 quoted lines

> On 16/10/2007, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> wrote:
>> Geert Bosch <bosch@adacore.com> 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.
>
> "skipped", then.

"good" and "bad" are descriptive. "to be skipped" would be necessary to fit it.

> Either way, something like this has got to be much better than
> "dunno".

"undecided" still has my vote, and I could live with "unknown". Everything that has been proposed since then is, in my opinion, strictly worse.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum