Re: [PATCH 2/4] bisect: replace hardcoded "bad|good" by variables

Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:

I disagree with this. In any case, we're looking for a pair of commits where one is a direct parent of the other. So in the end, there's always the old behavior and the new behavior in the end.

In natural language, I can write "terms good/bad correspond to the situation where the new behavior is a bug and the old behavior was correct" and "terms fixed/unfixed correspond to the situation where the new behavior does not have a bug and the old one does", so I can describe several pairs of terms with old/new. When looking for a bugfix, saying "NAME_GOOD=new" seems backward. I would read this as "the good behavior is to be new", while I would expect "the new behavior is to be good".

I agree with this part though. If people working with the bisect codebase (which includes you) are more comfortable with good/bad, that's a valid reason to keep it.

IOW, I still think old/new is more generic, but that is not a strong objection and should not block the patch.