Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Antoine Delaite <antoine.delaite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> --- a/git-bisect.sh >> +++ b/git-bisect.sh >> @@ -32,6 +32,8 @@ OPTIONS_SPEC= >> >> _x40='[0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f][0-9a-f]' >> _x40="$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40$_x40" >> +NAME_BAD="bad" >> +NAME_GOOD="good" > > I would have written > > NAME_NEW=bad > NAME_OLD=good > > "old/new" are the generic wording, so I think it would make more sense > for the codebase to use it when we don't hardcode old/new. Yeah, I would think so, especially if we envision that the new/old will not be the only pair we will ever allow in place for the traditional bad/good. Being bad is just a special case of being new only when you are hunting for a regression. -- 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