patch, 7 partsBisect dunno

> El 14/10/2007, a las 14:28, Christian Couder escribió:
>
>> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.
>
> Good work on the series, Christian, but don't you think that  
> "unknown" would sound a little bit better than "dunno"? For people  
> who don't speak English as a second language "dunno" might not be  
> immediately clear.

> El 14/10/2007, a las 14:28, Christian Couder escribió:
>
>> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.
>
> Good work on the series, Christian, but don't you think that
> "unknown" would sound a little bit better than "dunno"? For people
> who don't speak English as a second language "dunno" might not be
> immediately clear.

> Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com> writes:
> > El 14/10/2007, a las 14:28, Christian Couder escribió:
> >> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.
> >
> > Good work on the series, Christian, but don't you think that
> > "unknown" would sound a little bit better than "dunno"? For people
> > who don't speak English as a second language "dunno" might not be
> > immediately clear.
>
> "undecided"?

> Le dimanche 14 octobre 2007, David Kastrup a écrit :
>> Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com> writes:
>> > El 14/10/2007, a las 14:28, Christian Couder escribió:
>> >> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.
>> >
>> > Good work on the series, Christian, but don't you think that
>> > "unknown" would sound a little bit better than "dunno"? For people
>> > who don't speak English as a second language "dunno" might not be
>> > immediately clear.
>>
>> "undecided"?
>
> I choosed "dunno" because that was what Dscho suggested in this thread:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/53584/focus=53595

> Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> writes:
> 
>> Le dimanche 14 octobre 2007, David Kastrup a écrit :
>>> Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com> writes:
>>>> El 14/10/2007, a las 14:28, Christian Couder escribió:
>>>>> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.
>>>> Good work on the series, Christian, but don't you think that
>>>> "unknown" would sound a little bit better than "dunno"? For people
>>>> who don't speak English as a second language "dunno" might not be
>>>> immediately clear.
>>> "undecided"?
>> I choosed "dunno" because that was what Dscho suggested in this thread:
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/53584/focus=53595
> 
> I would think that tongue-in-cheek.  In case it was serious, I'd
> consider it one of those cases where it would make good sense to
> overrule the geek penchant for quirkiness.
> 
> Just think about the nuisance of finding adequate translations in
> i18n: "Woaßnet", "Eh?", "Chepas" etc.
> 

> Le dimanche 14 octobre 2007, David Kastrup a écrit :
>> Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com> writes:
>>> El 14/10/2007, a las 14:28, Christian Couder escribió:
>>>> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.
>>> Good work on the series, Christian, but don't you think that
>>> "unknown" would sound a little bit better than "dunno"? For people
>>> who don't speak English as a second language "dunno" might not be
>>> immediately clear.
>> "undecided"?
> 
> I choosed "dunno" because that was what Dscho suggested in this thread:
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/53584/focus=53595
> 
> It seems to me short and understandable at the same time.
> 
> More meaningfull would be "untestable" or "cannottest" or "canttest" but 
> it's much longer, while "good" and "bad" are short.

> Christian Couder schrieb:
>> 
>> I choosed "dunno" because that was what Dscho suggested in this thread:
>> 
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/53584/focus=53595
>> 
>> It seems to me short and understandable at the same time.
>> 
>> More meaningfull would be "untestable" or "cannottest" or
>> "canttest" but it's much longer, while "good" and "bad" are short.
>
> Ugly?  Neutral?

> René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> writes:
>
>> Christian Couder schrieb:
>>>
>>> I choosed "dunno" because that was what Dscho suggested in this  
>>> thread:
>>>
>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/53584/ 
>>> focus=53595
>>>
>>> It seems to me short and understandable at the same time.
>>>
>>> More meaningfull would be "untestable" or "cannottest" or
>>> "canttest" but it's much longer, while "good" and "bad" are short.
>>
>> Ugly?  Neutral?
>
> "Ugly" has a certain charm to it but would probably not translate
> well.  "Limbo" would be another such candidate, probably with better
> translatability.  But while some of those have some geeky appeal, I
> really think something reasonably plain like "undecided" would be
> better in the long run.

> El 14/10/2007, a las 18:25, David Kastrup escribió:
>> René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> writes:
>> 
>>> Christian Couder schrieb:
>>>> I choosed "dunno" because that was what Dscho suggested in
>>>> this thread:
>>>> 
>>>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/53584/
>>>>  focus=53595
>>>> 
>>>> It seems to me short and understandable at the same time.
>>>> 
>>>> More meaningfull would be "untestable" or "cannottest" or 
>>>> "canttest" but it's much longer, while "good" and "bad" are
>>>> short.
>>> Ugly?  Neutral?
>> "Ugly" has a certain charm to it but would probably not translate
>>  well.  "Limbo" would be another such candidate, probably with
>> better translatability.  But while some of those have some geeky
>> appeal, I really think something reasonably plain like
>> "undecided" would be better in the long run.
> 
> "undecided" sounds good to me. It should be clear to non-native 
> speakers of English (at least, clearer than "dunno").

> Wincent Colaiuta said the following on 14.10.2007 18:35:
>
>> "undecided" sounds good to me. It should be clear to non-native
>> speakers of English (at least, clearer than "dunno").
>
> What about just "unknown"?

> Marius Storm-Olsen <marius@trolltech.com> writes:
> 
>> Wincent Colaiuta said the following on 14.10.2007 18:35:
>>
>>> "undecided" sounds good to me. It should be clear to non-native
>>> speakers of English (at least, clearer than "dunno").
>> What about just "unknown"?
> 
> I tend to nitpick to the degree of silliness when my own suggestions
> are concerned, but "unknown" sounds to me like the state _before_ the
> test.  If a person says he is "undecided" about something that means
> that he _has_ thought about it already.  "Undecidable" might bring
> this distinction across more strongly, but it is a more complicated
> word and it insinuates that it is _impossible_ to come to a decision
> regardless of the spent effort.
> 
> "unknown" clearly is much better than "dunno" though even if my own
> favorite would be "undecided".

> David Kastrup said the following on 14.10.2007 19:48:
> >
> > "unknown" clearly is much better than "dunno" though even if my own
> > favorite would be "undecided".
>
> What then about a good'ol programming favorite, "void"? :-)

> On 15/10/2007, Marius Storm-Olsen <marius@trolltech.com> wrote:
> > David Kastrup said the following on 14.10.2007 19:48:
> > >
> > > "unknown" clearly is much better than "dunno" though even if my own
> > > favorite would be "undecided".
> >
> > What then about a good'ol programming favorite, "void"? :-)
> 
> "skip"? That would make semantic sense, right?

> On Monday 15 October 2007, David Symonds wrote:
>> On 15/10/2007, Marius Storm-Olsen <marius@trolltech.com> wrote:
>>> David Kastrup said the following on 14.10.2007 19:48:
>>>>
>>>> "unknown" clearly is much better than "dunno" though even if my own
>>>> favorite would be "undecided".
>>>
>>> What then about a good'ol programming favorite, "void"? :-)
>>
>> "skip"? That would make semantic sense, right?
>
> ...or we could go all spaghetti western, and call it "ugly".
>
> (as in "git-bisect [the <good>, the <bad> and the <ugly>]")

> El 15/10/2007, a las 9:02, Johan Herland escribió:
>
> > On Monday 15 October 2007, David Symonds wrote:
> >> On 15/10/2007, Marius Storm-Olsen <marius@trolltech.com> wrote:
> >>> David Kastrup said the following on 14.10.2007 19:48:
> >>>>
> >>>> "unknown" clearly is much better than "dunno" though even if my own
> >>>> favorite would be "undecided".
> >>>
> >>> What then about a good'ol programming favorite, "void"? :-)
> >>
> >> "skip"? That would make semantic sense, right?
> >
> > ...or we could go all spaghetti western, and call it "ugly".
> >
> > (as in "git-bisect [the <good>, the <bad> and the <ugly>]")
>
> <personal opinion>
>    Yes, it's funny, but I don't think an SCM interface is a place for
> jokes or puns. Git already has one big tongue-in-cheek attribute:
> it's name, so let's leave it at that.
> </personal opinion>

> 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.

> 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.

> On 16/10/2007, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> 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.
>
> "skipped", then.

> "David Symonds" <dsymonds@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On 16/10/2007, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> 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.
> >
> > "skipped", then.
> 
> "good" and "bad" are descriptive.  "to be skipped" would be necessary
> to fit it.

> tisdag 16 oktober 2007 skrev David Kastrup:
>> "David Symonds" <dsymonds@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>> > On 16/10/2007, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> 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.
>> >
>> > "skipped", then.
>> 
>> "good" and "bad" are descriptive.  "to be skipped" would be necessary
>> to fit it.
>
> Yet another very short word: void.

> On 2007-10-17 18:10:55 +0200, Robin Rosenberg wrote:
>
> > Yet another very short word: void.
>
> My vote is for "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious". It's clearly
> superior to the 1500 other suggestions in this thread.

> 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.

> 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.

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > 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.

> On 15/10/2007, Marius Storm-Olsen <marius@trolltech.com> wrote:
> > David Kastrup said the following on 14.10.2007 19:48:
> > > "unknown" clearly is much better than "dunno" though even if my own
> > > favorite would be "undecided".
> >
> > What then about a good'ol programming favorite, "void"? :-)
>
> "skip"? That would make semantic sense, right?

> David Kastrup said the following on 14.10.2007 19:48:
>> Marius Storm-Olsen <marius@trolltech.com> writes:
>>
>>> Wincent Colaiuta said the following on 14.10.2007 18:35:
>>>
>>>> "undecided" sounds good to me. It should be clear to non-native
>>>> speakers of English (at least, clearer than "dunno").
>>> What about just "unknown"?
>>
>> I tend to nitpick to the degree of silliness when my own suggestions
>> are concerned, but "unknown" sounds to me like the state _before_ the
>> test.  If a person says he is "undecided" about something that means
>> that he _has_ thought about it already.  "Undecidable" might bring
>> this distinction across more strongly, but it is a more complicated
>> word and it insinuates that it is _impossible_ to come to a decision
>> regardless of the spent effort.
>>
>> "unknown" clearly is much better than "dunno" though even if my own
>> favorite would be "undecided".
>
> What then about a good'ol programming favorite, "void"? :-)

> Le dimanche 14 octobre 2007, David Kastrup a ?crit :
> > Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com> writes:
> > > El 14/10/2007, a las 14:28, Christian Couder escribi?:
> > >> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.
> > >
> > > Good work on the series, Christian, but don't you think that
> > > "unknown" would sound a little bit better than "dunno"? For people
> > > who don't speak English as a second language "dunno" might not be
> > > immediately clear.
> >
> > "undecided"?
> 
> I choosed "dunno" because that was what Dscho suggested in this thread:
> 
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/53584/focus=53595
> 
> It seems to me short and understandable at the same time.
> 
> More meaningfull would be "untestable" or "cannottest" or "canttest" but 
> it's much longer, while "good" and "bad" are short.

> Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.
> The changes since last time are the following:
> 
> [PATCH 1/7] rev-list: implement --bisect-all
> [PATCH 2/7] Bisect: fix some white spaces and empty lines breakages.
> 
> -> No change.
> 
> [PATCH 3/7] Bisect: implement "bisect dunno" to mark untestable revisions.
> 
> -> Added dunno stuff in "bisect_replay" that I had forgotten.
> -> Use "bisect_write_good" and "bisect_write_bad" in "bisect_replay" 
> while at it.
> 
> [PATCH 4/7] Bisect: factorise "bisect_write_*" functions.
> [PATCH 5/7] Bisect: factorise some logging into "bisect_write".
> [PATCH 6/7] Bisect: factorise "bisect_{bad,good,dunno}" into "bisect_state".
> 
> -> Some new factorisation and clean up work.
> 
> [PATCH 7/7] Bisect: add "bisect dunno" to the documentation.
> 
> -> Document "bisect dunno" and fix some short usage descriptions.

> Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> wrote:
> > Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.
> > The changes since last time are the following:
> 
> I now have this series queued in my pu branch.  It passes the tests
> it comes with, and doesn't appear to break anything, but apparently
> there is also still some debate about what a dunno should be called
> ("unknown", "void", "ugly", "dunno", "skip" ...).

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:
> > Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> wrote:
> > > Here is my bisect dunno patch series again.
> > > The changes since last time are the following:
> >
> > I now have this series queued in my pu branch.  It passes the tests
> > it comes with, and doesn't appear to break anything, but apparently
> > there is also still some debate about what a dunno should be called
> > ("unknown", "void", "ugly", "dunno", "skip" ...).
>
> AFAICT these are all bikeshed painting arguments, not technical
> arguments. I was initially opposed to having --bisect-all, wanting to
> have
> --bisect-dunno <ref>...
>
> But in the end, the people doing the work decide, and therefore I am fine
> with --bisect-all, especially since it seems clean enough for me.
>
> As for all those "dunno is no English"...  I'd first merge the technical
> part (i.e. what you have now in pu), and then let the discussion about
> which synonyms to choose continue, until a consensus is formed about
> other names (if there is a consensus at all!).
>
> IMHO there is no reason to hold of the fine work of Christian,

> Le jeudi 18 octobre 2007, Linus Torvalds a écrit :
> > Well, this has been debated to death, but I actually think that "skip" is
> > a good choice, exactly because it's an action.
> 
> I will happily provide a new patch series with "skip" instead of "dunno" 
> if/when Shawn says that the discussion is over.