Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> they would call "term2" into "term1" somewhere. e.g.
>
> -ancestors of term1.
> +ancestors of term1. For example, if something was buggy in
> +the old part of the history, you know somewhere the bug was
> +fixed, and you want to find the exact commit that fixed it,
> +you may want to say `git bisect terms fixed broken`; this
> +way, you would mark a commit that still has the bug with
> +`broken`, and a newer one after the fix with `fixed`.
>
> or something?
Yes.
> I am wondering (together with the documentation patch) if it would
> be better to be more explicit, instead of term[12], like this:
>
> git bisect terms new old
Yes. I eliminated all instance of term1 and term2 in the doc of the
patch, and replaced with <term-old> and <term-new>.
>> +bisect_terms () {
>> + case "$#" in
>> + 0)
>> + if test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_TERMS"
>> + then
>> + {
>> + read term1
>> + read term2
>> + }<"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_TERMS"
>> + gettextln "Your current terms are $term1 and $term2."
>
> The same comment on this part. Instead of "git bisect terms" that
> just says "You are using $term1 and $term2", the users would benefit
> if it said "You are using $term1 for newer state and $term2 for
> older state" [*1*].
Done. It's up to date on
https://github.com/moy/git/tree/bisect-terms
Will resend.
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
--
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