Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
Date: Oct 17, 2007, 16:13 UTC
Message-ID: <86myuhg1nb.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz>
In-Reply-To: <200710171810.56215.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com>

Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> writes:

Show 22 quoted lines

> tisdag 16 oktober 2007 skrev David Kastrup:
>> "David Symonds" <dsymonds@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > 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.
>
> Yet another very short word: void.

It is not "yet another": I already explained why it does not fit.

-- 
David Kastrup