Javier Mora <cousteaulecommandant@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> The output of `git bisect -h` suffers the same problem. Perhaps this >> patch can fix that, as well? > > Certainly possible. Probably best if I put that on a second patch > though (i.e. a separate commit). Or should I just squash everything > together? In this case, a single patch is the way to go; otherwise we will (tentatively) be in an inconsistent state after applying one until the other gets applied. > There are still multiple .po files containing the old string, I guess > I don't need to touch those? Correct. > Speaking of which, looking at the .po files I've found that there's > also a `git bisect--helper` command; I don't know if that's relevant > nor how to modify that. bisect--helper has been retired but most of the messages used by it should have been in use by bisect proper, so only the "this message appears here" comments may be wrong. In any case, touching po/ is not in the scope of this isolated fix. The i18n group has their own workflows to update the files there, and those touching the code and docs should not have to touch them in general. >> I wonder if we should eventually move these into the >> proper SYNOPSIS section. > > Seems reasonable. I was actually wondering about that. But not as a part of this isolated fix.
