[PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Christian Couder]

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.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Wincent Colaiuta]

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

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Wincent Colaiuta]

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

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[David Kastrup]

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"?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Christian Couder]

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.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[David Kastrup]

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.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Andreas Ericsson]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 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.
> 

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

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[René Scharfe]

Christian Couder schrieb:
> 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.

Ugly?  Neutral?

René

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[David Kastrup]

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.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Wincent Colaiuta]

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").

<personal opinion>
   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.
</personal opinion>

Cheers,
Wincent

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Marius Storm-Olsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1116 bytes --]

Wincent Colaiuta said the following on 14.10.2007 18:35:
> 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").

What about just "unknown"?

-- 
.marius


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 187 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[David Kastrup]

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, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Marius Storm-Olsen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1355 bytes --]

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"? :-)

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


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 187 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[David Symonds]

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?


Dave.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Johan Herland]

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>]")


Have fun! :)

...Johan

-- 
Johan Herland, <johan@herland.net>
www.herland.net

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Wincent Colaiuta]

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>

Cheers,
Wincent

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[David Symonds]

On 15/10/2007, Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com> 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 <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>

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.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Geert Bosch]

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.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[David Kastrup]

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.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[David Symonds]

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. Either way, something like this has got to be much
better than "dunno".


Dave.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[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.

> 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

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Robin Rosenberg]

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.

I'm thinking about ticket copies that sometimes are marked "void" so you cannot use it.

-- robin

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[David Kastrup]

Robin Rosenberg <robin.rosenberg.lists@dewire.com> writes:

> 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.

It is not "yet another": I already explained why it does not fit.

-- 
David Kastrup

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Karl Hasselström]

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

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Karl Hasselström]

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

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Linus Torvalds]

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.

"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

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> 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.

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

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Linus Torvalds]

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

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[David Symonds]

On 18/10/2007, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> 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.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Shawn O. Pearce]

Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org> 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.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Christian Couder]

Le lundi 15 octobre 2007, David Symonds a écrit :
> 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?

Yeah, or "avoid".

Christian.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[David Kastrup]

Marius Storm-Olsen <marius@trolltech.com> writes:

> 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"? :-)

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

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Sun, 14 Oct 2007, Christian Couder wrote:

> 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.

I guess this discussion means that nobody has anything technical to argue 
about.  IOW your patch series is good...

;-)

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Johannes Schindelin]

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

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Shawn O. Pearce]

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" ...).

-- 
Shawn.

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Johannes Schindelin]

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, just 
because there are non-technical arguments still in the air.

I want bisect dunno.  Even if there is another name later.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [PATCH 0/7] Bisect dunno

[Christian Couder]

Hi,

Le mercredi 17 octobre 2007, Johannes Schindelin a écrit :
> 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,

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.