On Wed, Dec 27, 2023 at 3:55 PM Britton Leo Kerin <britton.kerin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > This is more correct because the <path>... doc syntax already indicates > that the arg is "array-type". It's how other tools do it. Finally, the > later document text mentions 'path' arguments, while it doesn't mention > 'paths'. Yep, makes sense. > Signed-off-by: Britton L Kerin <britton.kergin@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > diff --git a/Documentation/git-bisect.txt b/Documentation/git-bisect.txt > @@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ The command takes various subcommands, and different options depending > git bisect start [--term-(new|bad)=<term-new> --term-(old|good)=<term-old>] > - [--no-checkout] [--first-parent] [<bad> [<good>...]] [--] [<paths>...] > + [--no-checkout] [--first-parent] [<bad> [<good>...]] [--] [<path>...] Looking good. In builtin/bisect.c, the "usage" string says "[<pathspec>...]" rather than "[<path>...]". Perhaps it makes sense to unify these? Also, there are a few more documentation files that could use the "<paths>" to "<path>..." fixup (though not always in the synopsis). A 'grep' indicates that git-checkout.txt, git-diff.txt, and git-rev-list-options.txt also mention "<paths>". Those may be outside the scope of this patch, although they could easily be included, as well, or made part of a patch series if you feel inclined.
