Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 07:02:05PM -0900, Britton Leo Kerin wrote: >> Britton Leo Kerin (2): >> doc: use singular form of repeatable path arg >> doc: refer to pathspec instead of path >> >> Documentation/git-bisect.txt | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> Range-diff against v1: >> 1: 90c081dcab ! 1: da40e4736b doc: use singular form of repeatable path arg >> @@ Commit message >> later document text mentions 'path' arguments, while it doesn't mention >> 'paths'. >> >> - Signed-off-by: Britton L Kerin <britton.kergin@xxxxxxxxx> >> + Signed-off-by: Britton Leo Kerin <britton.kergin@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> ## Documentation/git-bisect.txt ## >> @@ Documentation/git-bisect.txt: The command takes various subcommands, and different options depending >> -: ---------- > 2: d932b6d501 doc: refer to pathspec instead of path >> -- >> 2.43.0 > > Hmm. The end-state of these two patches looks good to me, but I probably > would have written this change as a single change from "paths" -> > "pathspec", not "paths" -> "path" -> "pathspec". Have we seen a resolution to this comment? I _think_ it is an OK approach to take to do this in two steps, if the use of technical term "pathspec" could be controversial, but since it is not, I am fine with either one or two patches. Since we already have the two-patch version, let's take it. Thanks.
