On 06/27/2015 06:25 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Christian Couder
> <christian.cou...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> If we don't want to support positional arguments, then I would suggest
>> supporting first the following instead:
>>
>> git bisect terms --name-good=fast --name-bad=slow
>> git bisect terms --name-bad=slow --name-good=fast
>>
>> This would make the interface consistent with the code.
>
> Which somewhat defeats the point of introducing "old" and "new", though.
> The "terms" support is for people who feel that good/bad would be too
> confusing
> for the particular bisect session (e.g. because they are hunting for a fix).
>
>>> We may want to start supporting
>>>
>>> git bisect start --new=master --old=maint
>>
>> Maybe we could also support:
>>
>> git bisect start --name-good=fast --name-bad=slow --fast=maint --slow=master
>
> The same comment for the token after --name-, but allowing the terms to be set
> at "start" could be a type-saver. With need for added "--name-"
> prefix (worse, twice),
> I am not sure if it would be seen as a useful type-saver, though.
I would like to remind everybody of my old claim that it would be
possible to teach `git bisect` to infer by itself which term means
"older" and which term means "newer":
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/244036
I think that making `bisect` smarter could make the UI simpler, though
admittedly it would be more work than the current proposal.
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhag...@alum.mit.edu
--
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
