On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, Junio C Hamano wrote: > There indeed was discussions along the line of adding "fixed" and "broken" > as synonyms to "bad" and "good". > > I mildly suspect that it is a matter of opinion if such an addition would > make things better or more confusing, because the word "broken" feels more > strongly associated with "bad" than "good". > > Perhaps "wanted" and "unwanted" makes a better pair of more neutral words? > In bisect, we do not want to judge commits' in absolute goodness scale. > It is all relative to what _you_ as the person who runs bisect want, and > in that sense the original terminology "good/bad" was suboptimal. It is short which is good. Why not simply automatically inverting the meaning of good and bad based on which commit is the ancestor of the other initially? Nicolas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html