Re: [PATCH v10.1 7/7] bisect: allow any terms set by user
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- Jun 27, 2015, 18:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq8ub5f0z2.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <vpq7fqppn5h.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
Show 24 quoted lines
> Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Christian Couder >>> <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Which somewhat defeats the point of introducing "old" and "new", though. >>> The "terms" support is for people who feel that good/bad would be too confusing >>> for the particular bisect session (e.g. because they are hunting for a fix). >> >> Well if --name-old and --name-new are also available as synonyms, it >> would not be too bad I think. >> People could use the option names that fit their mental model or their >> use case better. > > OK, I'll add both.
I moderately hate to see both from aesthetics point of view, but can we at least lose "--name-" prefix? Having to repeat that twice does not add any value to the subcommand.