# [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno 37 messages from 2007-10-14 to 2007-10-19. Participants: Christian Couder, Wincent Colaiuta, David Kastrup, Andreas Ericsson, René Scharfe, Johannes Schindelin, Marius Storm-Olsen, David Symonds, Johan Herland, Geert Bosch, Shawn O. Pearce, Robin Rosenberg, Karl Hasselström, Linus Torvalds. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/10274 ## Christian Couder, 2007-10-14 12:28 Subject: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <20071014142826.8caa0a9f.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20071014142826.8caa0a9f.chriscool%40tuxfamily.org ``` Hi all, 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. Regards, Christian. ``` ## Wincent Colaiuta, 2007-10-14 12:43 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/F32B0EEF-496C-4D6D-BD9A-B6A0C04E0EE3%40wincent.com In-Reply-To: <20071014142826.8caa0a9f.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> ``` 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. Cheers, Wincent ``` ## Wincent Colaiuta, 2007-10-14 12:59 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/D59AD700-7F5A-4902-9448-95B9E72D6F33%40wincent.com In-Reply-To: ``` El 14/10/2007, a las 14:43, Wincent Colaiuta escribió: > 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. Doh, I meant to say "people who don't speak English as a *first* language". Cheers, Wincent ``` ## David Kastrup, 2007-10-14 13:00 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <854pgtonp5.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/854pgtonp5.fsf%40lola.goethe.zz In-Reply-To: ``` Wincent Colaiuta 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"? -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ``` ## David Kastrup, 2007-10-14 15:09 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <85d4vhn35z.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/85d4vhn35z.fsf%40lola.goethe.zz In-Reply-To: <200710141709.51579.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> ``` Christian Couder writes: > Le dimanche 14 octobre 2007, David Kastrup a écrit : >> Wincent Colaiuta 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. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ``` ## Christian Couder, 2007-10-14 15:09 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <200710141709.51579.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/200710141709.51579.chriscool%40tuxfamily.org In-Reply-To: <854pgtonp5.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> ``` Le dimanche 14 octobre 2007, David Kastrup a écrit : > Wincent Colaiuta 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. ``` ## Andreas Ericsson, 2007-10-14 15:14 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <4712323B.6060902@op5.se> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/4712323B.6060902%40op5.se In-Reply-To: <85d4vhn35z.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> ``` David Kastrup wrote: > Christian Couder writes: > >> Le dimanche 14 octobre 2007, David Kastrup a écrit : >>> Wincent Colaiuta 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. > Well, that won't be a problem, as commands and their subcommands and options aren't translated. -- Andreas Ericsson andreas.ericsson@op5.se OP5 AB www.op5.se Tel: +46 8-230225 Fax: +46 8-230231 ``` ## René Scharfe, 2007-10-14 16:13 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <4712400C.2080900@lsrfire.ath.cx> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/4712400C.2080900%40lsrfire.ath.cx In-Reply-To: <200710141709.51579.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> ``` Christian Couder schrieb: > Le dimanche 14 octobre 2007, David Kastrup a écrit : >> Wincent Colaiuta 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. Ugly? Neutral? René ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2007-10-14 16:16 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.64.0710141715470.25221%40racer.site In-Reply-To: <20071014142826.8caa0a9f.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> ``` Hi, On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Christian Couder wrote: > 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. Thanks for doing this. I think that especially the factorisation adds tremendously to the readibility. Ciao, Dscho ``` ## David Kastrup, 2007-10-14 16:25 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <85y7e5ll38.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/85y7e5ll38.fsf%40lola.goethe.zz In-Reply-To: <4712400C.2080900@lsrfire.ath.cx> ``` René Scharfe 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. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ``` ## Wincent Colaiuta, 2007-10-14 16:35 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <522E90CF-FC15-472F-B0A8-91C310CAF9BF@wincent.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/522E90CF-FC15-472F-B0A8-91C310CAF9BF%40wincent.com In-Reply-To: <85y7e5ll38.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> ``` El 14/10/2007, a las 18:25, David Kastrup escribió: > René Scharfe 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"). Another problem with "dunno" is that it might come across as a bit unprofessional due to its informality. Yes, you'll find it in most dictionaries, but always with a qualifier of "slang", "colloquial", "casual", "pronunciation spelling" or similar. Cheers, Wincent ``` ## Marius Storm-Olsen, 2007-10-14 17:24 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <471250BC.7070307@trolltech.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/471250BC.7070307%40trolltech.com In-Reply-To: <522E90CF-FC15-472F-B0A8-91C310CAF9BF@wincent.com> ``` Wincent Colaiuta said the following on 14.10.2007 18:35: > El 14/10/2007, a las 18:25, David Kastrup escribió: >> René Scharfe 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"). What about just "unknown"? -- .marius ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2007-10-14 17:25 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.64.0710141824390.25221%40racer.site In-Reply-To: <200710141709.51579.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> ``` Hi, On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Christian Couder wrote: > Le dimanche 14 octobre 2007, David Kastrup a ?crit : > > Wincent Colaiuta 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. I guess this discussion means that nobody has anything technical to argue about. IOW your patch series is good... ;-) Ciao, Dscho ``` ## David Kastrup, 2007-10-14 17:48 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <85d4vhlh8y.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/85d4vhlh8y.fsf%40lola.goethe.zz In-Reply-To: <471250BC.7070307@trolltech.com> ``` Marius Storm-Olsen 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, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ``` ## Marius Storm-Olsen, 2007-10-15 06:04 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <471302D2.6010405@trolltech.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/471302D2.6010405%40trolltech.com In-Reply-To: <85d4vhlh8y.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> ``` David Kastrup said the following on 14.10.2007 19:48: > Marius Storm-Olsen 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"? :-) I agree that "unknown" might be a state even _before_ a person has determined if a case is good or bad (same for 'dunno' actually: "- Do you know if it works? - I dunno yet") When I think more about it, I really like "void".. "Argh, this test is void, because someone messed with it" "We can't make heads or tails of this one, so it must be void" -- .marius ``` ## David Symonds, 2007-10-15 06:15 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/ee77f5c20710142315j192b9f65m22d7980769a46cec%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <471302D2.6010405@trolltech.com> ``` On 15/10/2007, Marius Storm-Olsen 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? Dave. ``` ## Johan Herland, 2007-10-15 07:02 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <200710150902.52653.johan@herland.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/200710150902.52653.johan%40herland.net In-Reply-To: ``` On Monday 15 October 2007, David Symonds wrote: > On 15/10/2007, Marius Storm-Olsen 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 , the and the ]") Have fun! :) ...Johan -- Johan Herland, www.herland.net ``` ## David Kastrup, 2007-10-15 08:25 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <86odf0pywz.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/86odf0pywz.fsf%40lola.quinscape.zz In-Reply-To: <471302D2.6010405@trolltech.com> ``` Marius Storm-Olsen writes: > David Kastrup said the following on 14.10.2007 19:48: >> Marius Storm-Olsen 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"? :-) Huh? void is a type, not a value. void would insinuate that it was wrong to ask the question, not that its answer could not be determined. > I agree that "unknown" might be a state even _before_ a person has > determined if a case is good or bad (same for 'dunno' actually: "- > Do you know if it works? - I dunno yet") When I think more about it, > I really like "void".. Well, I don't. Basically, I would say that this seems to be so much a matter of personal taste that we should at this point of time leave the decision of how to pick this to Junio. Whether this gets resolved by vote or by authority: seems like the fine lines are no longer worth the time invested in discussing them. -- David Kastrup ``` ## Wincent Colaiuta, 2007-10-15 09:31 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <7EDF99A4-00BD-4F89-A31F-DCA33723CDD5@wincent.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7EDF99A4-00BD-4F89-A31F-DCA33723CDD5%40wincent.com In-Reply-To: <200710150902.52653.johan@herland.net> ``` 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 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 , the and the ]") 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. Cheers, Wincent ``` ## David Symonds, 2007-10-15 11:53 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/ee77f5c20710150453g1220d968k9a23f2b8329a67db%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <7EDF99A4-00BD-4F89-A31F-DCA33723CDD5@wincent.com> ``` On 15/10/2007, Wincent Colaiuta wrote: > 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 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 , the and the ]") > > > 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. > 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. Dave. ``` ## Geert Bosch, 2007-10-15 20:33 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <0C82FD96-2CF9-4E66-91EB-DBC2CFF003E8@adacore.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/0C82FD96-2CF9-4E66-91EB-DBC2CFF003E8%40adacore.com In-Reply-To: ``` 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. ``` ## David Kastrup, 2007-10-15 20:47 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <85ve98gl57.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/85ve98gl57.fsf%40lola.goethe.zz In-Reply-To: <0C82FD96-2CF9-4E66-91EB-DBC2CFF003E8@adacore.com> ``` Geert Bosch 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. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ``` ## Christian Couder, 2007-10-16 03:41 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <200710160541.45481.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/200710160541.45481.chriscool%40tuxfamily.org In-Reply-To: ``` Le lundi 15 octobre 2007, David Symonds a écrit : > On 15/10/2007, Marius Storm-Olsen 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? Yeah, or "avoid". Christian. ``` ## David Symonds, 2007-10-16 06:07 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/ee77f5c20710152307n48431a6eu5dc95ee504968e4e%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <85ve98gl57.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> ``` On 16/10/2007, David Kastrup wrote: > Geert Bosch 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. Either way, something like this has got to be much better than "dunno". Dave. ``` ## David Kastrup, 2007-10-16 06:17 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <856417h9cj.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/856417h9cj.fsf%40lola.goethe.zz In-Reply-To: ``` "David Symonds" writes: > On 16/10/2007, David Kastrup wrote: >> Geert Bosch 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. > Either way, something like this has got to be much better than > "dunno". "undecided" still has my vote, and I could live with "unknown". Everything that has been proposed since then is, in my opinion, strictly worse. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum ``` ## Shawn O. Pearce, 2007-10-17 07:35 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <20071017073538.GB13801@spearce.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20071017073538.GB13801%40spearce.org In-Reply-To: <20071014142826.8caa0a9f.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> ``` Christian Couder 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" ...). -- Shawn. ``` ## Robin Rosenberg, 2007-10-17 16:10 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <200710171810.56215.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/200710171810.56215.robin.rosenberg.lists%40dewire.com In-Reply-To: <856417h9cj.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> ``` tisdag 16 oktober 2007 skrev David Kastrup: > "David Symonds" writes: > > > On 16/10/2007, David Kastrup wrote: > >> Geert Bosch 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. I'm thinking about ticket copies that sometimes are marked "void" so you cannot use it. -- robin ``` ## David Kastrup, 2007-10-17 16:13 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <86myuhg1nb.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/86myuhg1nb.fsf%40lola.quinscape.zz In-Reply-To: <200710171810.56215.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> ``` Robin Rosenberg writes: > tisdag 16 oktober 2007 skrev David Kastrup: >> "David Symonds" writes: >> >> > On 16/10/2007, David Kastrup wrote: >> >> Geert Bosch 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. It is not "yet another": I already explained why it does not fit. -- David Kastrup ``` ## Karl Hasselström, 2007-10-17 16:17 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <20071017161749.GA17985@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20071017161749.GA17985%40diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk In-Reply-To: <200710171810.56215.robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> ``` 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. -- Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com www.treskal.com/kalle ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2007-10-17 18:10 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.64.0710171906280.25221%40racer.site In-Reply-To: <20071017073538.GB13801@spearce.org> ``` Hi, On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > Christian Couder 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 ... 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, just because there are non-technical arguments still in the air. I want bisect dunno. Even if there is another name later. Ciao, Dscho ``` ## Karl Hasselström, 2007-10-17 19:23 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <20071017192329.GA20609@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20071017192329.GA20609%40diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk In-Reply-To: <20071017161749.GA17985@diana.vm.bytemark.co.uk> ``` On 2007-10-17 18:17:49 +0200, Karl Hasselström wrote: > 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. (Not intended as an attack on this particular suggestion, by the way. Sorry if it sounded a bit harsh.) -- Karl Hasselström, kha@treskal.com www.treskal.com/kalle ``` ## Linus Torvalds, 2007-10-17 22:59 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/alpine.LFD.0.999.0710171553580.26902%40woody.linux-foundation.org In-Reply-To: <85ve98gl57.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> ``` On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, David Kastrup wrote: > Geert Bosch 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 ``` ## Christian Couder, 2007-10-17 23:36 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <200710180136.24090.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/200710180136.24090.chriscool%40tuxfamily.org In-Reply-To: ``` Hi, Le mercredi 17 octobre 2007, Johannes Schindelin a écrit : > Hi, > > On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote: > > Christian Couder 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 ... > > 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, It's also the fine work of Junio as he wrote most of the "rev-list --bisect-all" patch. > just > because there are non-technical arguments still in the air. > > I want bisect dunno. Even if there is another name later. Thanks for your kind words, Christian. ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2007-10-17 23:46 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.64.0710180045160.25221%40racer.site In-Reply-To: ``` Hi, On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 15 Oct 2007, David Kastrup wrote: > > > Geert Bosch 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. 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. Ciao, Dscho ``` ## Linus Torvalds, 2007-10-17 23:59 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/alpine.LFD.0.999.0710171654300.26902%40woody.linux-foundation.org In-Reply-To: ``` On Thu, 18 Oct 2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > 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. I thought everybody really agreed that being able to skip commits that you cannot say good/bad about is a feature worth doing? Right now we actually have some docs in the man-page about doing that avoidance manually, so it's not like it's debatable whether this issue comes up. It most definitely does come up. Does anybody really think it's not a good feature? And I've not seen negative comments about the implementation either apart from some small details that I think got fixed up already (but maybe the complaints were all hidden by the shed color discussions ;) Linus ``` ## David Symonds, 2007-10-18 01:24 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/ee77f5c20710171824o33ea13aqe6a6c8aa096f56c7%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: ``` On 18/10/2007, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > 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. I figured with something like this, it'd be a lot easier to get the colour right first, since command UI is harder to repaint if it gets widely adopted. Anyway, I think the patch itself is a very good feature. Dave. ``` ## Shawn O. Pearce, 2007-10-19 02:49 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno Message-ID: <20071019024939.GC14735@spearce.org> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20071019024939.GC14735%40spearce.org In-Reply-To: <200710190449.49477.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> ``` Christian Couder wrote: > 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. I had concluded yesterday that this discussion is likely over and that skip is the term we all were OK with. But unfortunately you just found out that vger is unable to read my mind and send such an email to the mailing list. :-) Please make it so. -- Shawn. ```