From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nicolas Pitre Subject: Re: [RFE] allow git bisect to figure out in which revision a bug was fixed Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:35:52 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: References: <7vfxcpdbsh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20090721202848.GA3453@localhost.localdomain> <7vprbtbwhu.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Cc: Josef Bacik , Jeff Moyer , git@vger.kernel.org To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jul 22 02:36:24 2009 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1MTPom-0002wa-37 for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:36:24 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751888AbZGVAgO (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:36:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751021AbZGVAgN (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:36:13 -0400 Received: from relais.videotron.ca ([24.201.245.36]:56542 "EHLO relais.videotron.ca" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750780AbZGVAgN (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:36:13 -0400 Received: from xanadu.home ([66.130.28.92]) by VL-MO-MR005.ip.videotron.ca (Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 6.3-4.01 (built Aug 3 2007; 32bit)) with ESMTP id <0KN500M4UQHA4ZQ0@VL-MO-MR005.ip.videotron.ca> for git@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 21 Jul 2009 20:24:46 -0400 (EDT) X-X-Sender: nico@xanadu.home In-reply-to: <7vprbtbwhu.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > There indeed was discussions along the line of adding "fixed" and "broken" > as synonyms to "bad" and "good". > > I mildly suspect that it is a matter of opinion if such an addition would > make things better or more confusing, because the word "broken" feels more > strongly associated with "bad" than "good". > > Perhaps "wanted" and "unwanted" makes a better pair of more neutral words? > In bisect, we do not want to judge commits' in absolute goodness scale. > It is all relative to what _you_ as the person who runs bisect want, and > in that sense the original terminology "good/bad" was suboptimal. It is short which is good. Why not simply automatically inverting the meaning of good and bad based on which commit is the ancestor of the other initially? Nicolas