> the patch subject becomes a bit outdated with this addition. Right; I wanted to change it to something like "clarify `git bisect run` syntax and other minor changes" but wanted to keep the title concise. I guess I could change it to just "clarify `git bisect` syntax" though remove the "run"). > the following two lines are already referencing placeholders > <term-new> and <term-old> That's why I added it; that `(bad|new|<term-new>)` felt a bit awkward with no previous explanation of what <term-new> was. > ...now we have an inconsistency again since this text just uses the > generic <term>. However, I haven't convinced myself that we need to > care about this inconsistency. I thought about that, but in THAT case it wasn't necessary because <term-new> and <term-old> are never used there (and I wanted to avoid making -h too long). But it's true that it feels inconsistent; I may add it just for the sake of consistency. Overall, maybe I should leave that change to a separate patch, even if it's a minor correction. (This made more sense when I had in mind the plan to move everything from description to synopsis so I would need to touch all those lines anyway.) The changes will be compatible anyway (they're far away enough to not cause merge conflicts). What do you think?
