Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> --- a/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh >> +++ b/t/t6030-bisect-porcelain.sh >> @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ test_expect_success 'bisect start: existing ".git/BISECT_START" not modified if >> cp .git/BISECT_START saved && >> test_must_fail git bisect start $HASH4 foo -- && >> git branch > branch.output && >> - test_i18ngrep "* (no branch)" branch.output > /dev/null && >> + test_i18ngrep "* (bisecting other)" branch.output > /dev/null && > > I'd have spelled it (no branch, bisecting other) to make it clear that > we're on detached HEAD, and avoid confusing old-timers. But maybe your > version is enough, I'm not sure. Yeah, I do not think "bisecting other" alone makes much sense. What does "other" refer to when you start your bisection at a detached head? I personally think "other" has _any_ value in that message, because "(no branch, bisecting)" gives the same amount of information, especially because "other" does not say which branch it refers to at all. -- 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