From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 23:46:28 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0710180045160.25221@racer.site>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0710171553580.26902@woody.linux-foundation.org>

Hi,

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, David Kastrup 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.
> 
> Well, this has been debated to death, but I actually think that "skip" 
> is a good choice, exactly because it's an action.

Could we, _please_, first decide if the implementation has merits, and 
just apply it as is in that case?  We can rename it whatever anybody likes 
later, and we can paint the bikeshed brown if you want to.

Ciao,
Dscho