Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Oct 17, 2007, 22:59 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0710171553580.26902@woody.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <85ve98gl57.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, David Kastrup wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> 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.

"good" and "bad" do indeed describe properties of the commit, and are used to describe the state of the tree in question. In contrast, "git bisect skip" says not somethign about the state of that tree - it talks about what we should *do* with that tree.

IOW, I think "git bisect skip" in some sense has more to do with an action like "git bisect start", than with "good" or "bad".

(Yes, "good" and "bad" have an action associated with them too - namely to start the next bisection event - but they are not named according to the action they cause, but because they describe the tree state)

			Linus