From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 760E61FEB3 for ; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 23:42:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751015AbdALXma (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:42:30 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp2.pobox.com ([64.147.108.71]:60012 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750796AbdALXm3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:42:29 -0500 Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B16AD60BB9; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:42:18 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=iR6l0XbsvUgTK7ByBQqXHq9CwPE=; b=mRXl4b 4JII/GQS9g08nZcjihNhxGyopBHrBfx9jv0O/XP6yaIHXjbTWLuy2C6BQmC0idhj G1AJxkH1be17zxboe8pspM66bdBOA8DY6Xi3aef7ew3ZN+MBSt+7huPtnQ97Ij6V oYA3P6TIC+Wt0T4miw5mwxv1PHYkPYn7EAVZ8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=g/GYsj2NC+tsVtJ4Wwk3Dw53xTT8v24C PNTVS+yeFUPnJJVSCm0DB8sDCgq0/vH8s77r8cR5n0p5pTixhbbKJQwwf9hTuvOo 0p/AZmPNSTSHLKe8ThC54uAQ8EG4JIqCY2IxG2mQ/iKf24Awo0uUaEZq2cv1cR2t Q20E6pSGDvc= Received: from pb-smtp2.nyi.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A89C560BB7; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:42:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [104.132.0.95]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp2.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 132D760BA4; Thu, 12 Jan 2017 18:42:18 -0500 (EST) From: Junio C Hamano To: Manuel Ullmann Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Christian Couder Subject: Re: Bug report: Documentation error in git-bisect man description References: <87r347swz1.fsf@sonnengebleicht.fritz.box> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2017 15:42:16 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Junio C. Hamano's message of "Thu, 12 Jan 2017 15:32:46 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C0F65CD2-D920-11E6-83D5-A7617B1B28F4-77302942!pb-smtp2.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Junio C Hamano writes: > Manuel Ullmann writes: > > Hmmm, I tend to agree, modulo a minor fix. > > If the description were in a context inside a paragraph like this: > > When you want to tell 'git bisect' that a belongs to > the newer half of the history, you say > > git bisect (bad|new) [] > > On the other hand, when you want to tell 'git bisect' that a > belongs to the older half of the history, you can say > > git bisect (good|old) [] > > then the pairing we see in the current text makes quite a lot of > sense. Actually, the above is _exactly_ what was intended. I misread the current documentation when I made the comment, and I think that the current one _IS_ correct. The latter half of the above is not about a single rev. You can paint multiple commits with the "older half" color, i.e. On the other hand, when you want to tell 'git bisect' that one or more s belong to the older half of the history, you can say git bisect (good|old) [...] In contrast, you can mark only one as newer (or "already bad"). So pairing (bad|good) and (new|old) like you suggested breaks the correctness of the command line description. If (bad|new) and (good|old) bothers you because they may mislead the readers to think bad is an opposite of new (and good is an opposite of old), the only solution I can think of to that problem is to expand these two lines into four and list them like this: git bisect bad [] git bisect good [...] git bisect new [] git bisect old [...]