digging through both git-bisect.sh and git-bisect.txt, and it seems
pretty clear they're both a bit out of date WRT documenting the newer
alternatives "old"/"new" as opposed to the older "good"/"bad" terms,
and a few other things.
first, trivially, neither the script nor the man page mention "view"
as an alternative to "visualize", but that's easy to fix. however,
most of the inconsistency involves that good/bad/old/new stuff.
the man page reads (in part):
git bisect (bad|new|<term-new>) [<rev>]
git bisect (good|old|<term-old>) [<rev>...]
which i assume should actually read:
git bisect (bad|new|<term-bad>|<term-new>) [<rev>]
git bisect (good|old|<term-good>|<term-old>) [<rev>...]
unless there's some implicit assumption that isn't mentioned there.
also from the man page, i'm guessing that:
git bisect terms [--term-good | --term-bad]
might need to say:
git bisect terms [--term-good | --term-bad | --term-new | --term-old]
and so on, and so on (again, unless the generality of those terms is
understood).
so given that all of that is, technically, documentation (even the
usage message in the script), if one submits a patch to change both
files appropriately, what is the subject line prefix to use?
anyway, maybe i'll do this in bite-size pieces to keep it
manageable. my first patch to the code base ... whoo hoo!
rday
--
========================================================================
Robert P. J. Day Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA
http://crashcourse.ca
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday
LinkedIn: http://ca.linkedin.com/in/rpjday
========================================================================
