From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2015 19:18:16 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] bisect: replace hardcoded "bad|good" by variables
Message-ID: <xmqqr3pk6687.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <vpqtwuhl6s0.fsf@anie.imag.fr>

Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> writes:

> Antoine Delaite <antoine.delaite@ensimag.grenoble-inp.fr> writes:
>
>> --- a/git-bisect.sh
>> +++ b/git-bisect.sh
>> @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ OPTIONS_SPEC=
>>  
>>  _x40='[0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]'
>>  _x40="$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40"
>> +NAME_BAD="bad"
>> +NAME_GOOD="good"
>
> I would have written
>
> NAME_NEW=bad
> NAME_OLD=good
>
> "old/new" are the generic wording, so I think it would make more sense
> for the codebase to use it when we don't hardcode old/new.

Yeah, I would think so, especially if we envision that the new/old
will not be the only pair we will ever allow in place for the
traditional bad/good.  Being bad is just a special case of being new
only when you are hunting for a regression.