On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Manuel Ullmann <ullman.alias@xxxxxxxxx> 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 <rev> belongs to
>> the newer half of the history, you say
>>
>> git bisect (bad|new) [<rev>]
>>
>> On the other hand, when you want to tell 'git bisect' that a
>> <rev> belongs to the older half of the history, you can say
>>
>> git bisect (good|old) [<rev>]
>>
>> 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 <rev>s belong to the older half of the history,
> you can say
>
> git bisect (good|old) [<rev>...]
>
> In contrast, you can mark only one <rev> as newer (or "already
> bad"). So pairing (bad|good) and (new|old) like you suggested
> breaks the correctness of the command line description.
Yeah, I agree.
> 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 [<rev>]
> git bisect good [<rev>...]
> git bisect new [<rev>]
> git bisect old [<rev>...]
Maybe it would be more complete and a bit clearer if it was:
git bisect (bad|new|<term-new>) [<rev>]
git bisect (good|old|<term-old>) [<rev>...]