On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 03:35:35PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Andreas Mohr <a...@lisas.de> writes:
> > The main point of my mail was to stretch the (whether actually intended)
> > *perceived* start <-> stop symmetry
> Actually, in that sense, I do no think finish is exactly a good
> wording. The majority of use case would be to finish up after you
> found the sole culprit, so in that sense "finish" is not too bad,
> but in general, when you "reset", there is not necessarily any
> symmmetry with "start". We should definitely not be giving you an
> illusion that there is one by using "stop" [*1*].
Yeah, of course, but the whole point was that the *user* will *directly*
and *immediately* mentally go from a bisect "start" parameter to "stop",
and end up failing to find it.
Thus the "stop" *KEYWORD* *has* to be mentioned in the man page
(even if only to then expressly state that reset is not quite about "stop"iing
> *1* another reason to avoid "stop" is that it could mean "I stop
> here for now, to later come back and start digging again from
> there", which is not "reset" is about at all.
Such reasons for not listing "stop" might even be stronger
than the reason of
users being required to successfully look up the symmetric "stop" keyword.
If that was decided to be the case, then "stop" would indeed have to be
omitted in the man page - to the detriments of usability.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html