Re: [PATCH v10.1 7/7] bisect: allow any terms set by user

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 27, 2015, 04:10 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD1PyS_qM3EHW_Nzmo=3aeTDkZ0M3hnhRQANAO+ShF3H1Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqa8vmrtsh.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> writes:
>
>>> Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr> writes:
>>>
>>>> + git bisect terms <term-old> <term-new>
>>>
>>> I think this is the other way around.
>>
>> Indeed.
>
> I hate to be saying this, but this is a strong indication that
> consistency with "start $bad $good..." must be broken.  If the
> person who has been working on this topic for a few iterations in
> the past few days cannot get it right, no ordinary user can.  With
> or without a mnemonic hint "N comes before O, so does B before G".
>
> Of course we cannot just say "git bisect terms old new".  That would
> only invite "eh, I do not remember, which between terms and start
> take the old one first?" without helping people.
>
> The best I can come up with is to forbid positional arguments to
> this subcommand and always require them to be given like so:
>
>         git bisect terms --old=fast --new=slow
>         git bisect terms --new=slow --old=fast

If we don't want to support positional arguments, then I would suggest supporting first the following instead:

         git bisect terms --name-good=fast --name-bad=slow
         git bisect terms --name-bad=slow --name-good=fast

This would make the interface consistent with the code.

Of course we could also accept --name-old and --name-new as synonyms for --name-good and --name-bad.

> We may want to start supporting
>
>         git bisect start --new=master --old=maint

Maybe we could also support:

git bisect start --name-good=fast --name-bad=slow --fast=maint --slow=master