Andrew Ardill <> writes:

> On 13 December 2012 04:49, Junio C Hamano <> wrote:
>> "bisect" with "<used-to-be, now-is> vs
>> <good, bad>" issue unsettled
> Would you want to see this issue resolved in-script before a porting
> attempt was started?

Honestly, I do not care too much either way, but for the people who
want to work either on the rewrite-to-C or on the semantics issue,
it would be easier to manage it that way.

And that "issue resolved in-script" does not have to be "implemented
in-script".  The resolution could be to declare that it is not worth
it and a promise to call the two states <good, bad> and with no
other names.  It would give a semantics for the rewriters-to-C can
start working on that is stable enough ;-).
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to