The following part of the description:
git bisect (bad|new) [<rev>]
git bisect (good|old) [<rev>...]
may be a bit confusing, as a reader may wonder if instead it should be:
git bisect (bad|good) [<rev>]
git bisect (old|new) [<rev>...]
Of course the difference between "[<rev>]" and "[<rev>...]" should hint
that there is a good reason for the way it is.
But we can further clarify and complete the description by adding
"<term-new>" and "<term-old>" to the "bad|new" and "good|old"
alternatives.
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Documentation/git-bisect.txt | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/git-bisect.txt b/Documentation/git-bisect.txt
index 2bb9a577a2..bdd915a66b 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-bisect.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-bisect.txt
@@ -18,8 +18,8 @@ on the subcommand:
git bisect start [--term-{old,good}=<term> --term-{new,bad}=<term>]
[--no-checkout] [<bad> [<good>...]] [--] [<paths>...]
- git bisect (bad|new) [<rev>]
- git bisect (good|old) [<rev>...]
+ git bisect (bad|new|<term-new>) [<rev>]
+ git bisect (good|old|<term-old>) [<rev>...]
git bisect terms [--term-good | --term-bad]
git bisect skip [(<rev>|<range>)...]
git bisect reset [<commit>]
--
2.11.0.313.g11b7cc88e6.dirty