Messages in this thread | | | From | "Bird, Tim" <> | Subject | RE: [Ksummit-discuss] [Tech-board-discuss] [PATCH] CodingStyle: Inclusive Terminology | Date | Tue, 7 Jul 2020 15:55:42 +0000 |
| |
> -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> > > On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:33:33 -0700 > Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org> 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
| |