On 7/7/20 8:24 AM, Bird, Tim wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Steven Rostedt
>>
>> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 09:49:21 +0300
>> Mike Rapoport <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> But that's all fine. The change is easy to do and is more descriptive
>>>> even if I can't find terms that don't collide with my internal grammar
>>>> checker. ;)
>>>
>>> How about yeslist and nolist? ;-)
>>
>> I was thinking good-list / bad-list.
>>
>> /me that has been doing a lot of git bisect lately...
>
> I think it depends on the context. I'd prefer a grammatically awkward verb that described
> the action more specifically, than a grammatically nicer generic term. In other words,
> yes/no, good/bad don't mean that much to me, unless it's obvious from context
> what the effect will be. With something like allow/deny, I have a pretty clear mental
> model of what the code is going to do.
That matches what I was about to say:
Just using yes/no does not tell someone what they are saying yes or no about.
It should be more descriptive, like allow/block.
--
~Randy
On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:33:33 -0700
Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I was thinking good-list / bad-list.
> >>
> >> /me that has been doing a lot of git bisect lately...
> >
> > I think it depends on the context. I'd prefer a grammatically awkward verb that described
> > the action more specifically, than a grammatically nicer generic term. In other words,
> > yes/no, good/bad don't mean that much to me, unless it's obvious from context
> > what the effect will be. With something like allow/deny, I have a pretty clear mental
> > model of what the code is going to do.
>
> That matches what I was about to say:
> Just using yes/no does not tell someone what they are saying yes or no about.
> It should be more descriptive, like allow/block.
After doing two days worth of git bisect, good/bad is hardcoded in my head :-p
-- Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Rostedt <[email protected]>
>
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:33:33 -0700
> Randy Dunlap <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> I was thinking good-list / bad-list.
> > >>
> > >> /me that has been doing a lot of git bisect lately...
> > >
> > > I think it depends on the context. I'd prefer a grammatically awkward verb that described
> > > the action more specifically, than a grammatically nicer generic term. In other words,
> > > yes/no, good/bad don't mean that much to me, unless it's obvious from context
> > > what the effect will be. With something like allow/deny, I have a pretty clear mental
> > > model of what the code is going to do.
> >
> > That matches what I was about to say:
> > Just using yes/no does not tell someone what they are saying yes or no about.
> > It should be more descriptive, like allow/block.
>
> After doing two days worth of git bisect, good/bad is hardcoded in my head :-p
Maybe I have the same bias, because good/bad there doesn't bother me at all. ;-)
Here is some 'motivated reasoning' on my part...
In the git case, the good/bad terms describe the result status of the test, not the action that git
is going to take based on that status. It's pretty clear from context that a 'good'
result will cause that commit and other commits to be added to the 'good' set. I think what
git actually does in constructing the sets is a bit too magical to describe with a simple
verb.
As an aside I just looked up 'git-bisect' documentation, and found it has support
for changing the terms used ('git bisect terms ..') so you can use words like 'fast/slow'
or 'fixed/broken'. That's something I didn't know about. :-)
-- Tim