Stephan Beyer <s-be...@gmx.net> writes: > Besides the things I'm mentioning in respective patch e-mails, I wonder > why several bisect--helper commands are prefixed by "bisect"; I'm > talking about: > > git bisect--helper --bisect-clean-state >... > git bisect--helper --bisect-start > etc. > > instead of > > git bisect--helper --clean-state >... > git bisect--helper --start > etc. > > Well, I know *why* they have these names: because the shell function > names are simply reused. But I don't know why these prefixes are kept in > the bisect--helper command options. On the other hand, these command > names are not exposed to the user and may hence not be that important.(?)
That's a good point ;-) These are not intended to be end-user entry points, so names that are bit longer than necessary does not bother me too much. Hopefully the longer-term endgame would be not to need a separate "bisect-helper" binary at all but to have a "git bisect" binary making these requests as subroutine calls, and at that point, the names of the functions would want to have "bisect" prefix.
