Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> writes:
> Manuel Ullmann <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Hmmm, I tend to agree, modulo a minor fix.
>
> If the description were in a context inside a paragraph like this:
>
> When you want to tell 'git bisect' that a <rev> belongs to
> the newer half of the history, you say
>
> git bisect (bad|new) [<rev>]
>
> On the other hand, when you want to tell 'git bisect' that a
> <rev> belongs to the older half of the history, you can say
>
> git bisect (good|old) [<rev>]
>
> then the pairing we see in the current text makes quite a lot of
> sense.
Actually, the above is _exactly_ what was intended. I misread the
current documentation when I made the comment, and I think that the
current one _IS_ correct. The latter half of the above is not about
a single rev. You can paint multiple commits with the "older half"
color, i.e.
On the other hand, when you want to tell 'git bisect' that
one or more <rev>s belong to the older half of the history,
you can say
git bisect (good|old) [<rev>...]
In contrast, you can mark only one <rev> as newer (or "already
bad"). So pairing (bad|good) and (new|old) like you suggested
breaks the correctness of the command line description.
If (bad|new) and (good|old) bothers you because they may mislead the
readers to think bad is an opposite of new (and good is an opposite
of old), the only solution I can think of to that problem is to
expand these two lines into four and list them like this:
git bisect bad [<rev>]
git bisect good [<rev>...]
git bisect new [<rev>]
git bisect old [<rev>...]
