Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Oct 17, 2007, 18:10 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710171906280.25221@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <20071017073538.GB13801@spearce.org>

Hi,

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> 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, just because there are non-technical arguments still in the air.

I want bisect dunno.  Even if there is another name later.

Ciao, Dscho