Subject: Re: [PATCH v10.1 7/7] bisect: allow any terms set by user

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 09:35:08 -0700

Matthieu Moy <[email-masked]> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> I moderately hate to see both from aesthetics point of view, but can
>> we at least lose "--name-" prefix?
>
> I changed it to --term- prefix, but I'd rather not drop it. When reading
> "--old=foo", it is not clear to me whether the meaning should be "the
> term used for old is foo" or "mark foo as old". The longer version does
> not have this problem.

Yeah, my suggestion was based on one assumption I did not mention,
which is that we do not need to crowd "bisect start" with this
option when we have "bisect terms", as long as "bisect start" does
not have to take both "what are the terms" and "which commits are
painted using which one of the two terms" on its command line, the
"--name-" prefix was unnecessary.

But if you are dropping "bisect terms" and allowing the terms
specified only from "bisect start" as you mentioned in the cover
letter of v11, that changes the equation.  And I think "start is the
place that sets up a clean slate, and that is the only place where
you can optionally declare your custom terms" is a very sensible
design.  I do not have a problem with "--terms" prefix in that case.

Thanks.