Re: Bug report: Documentation error in git-bisect man description

> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: >> Junio C Hamano writes: >> >>> Manuel Ullmann writes: >>> >>> Hmmm, I tend to agree, modulo a minor fix. >>> >>> If the description were in a context inside a paragraph like

Re: Bug report: Documentation error in git-bisect man description

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: > >> Manuel Ullmann writes: >> >> Hmmm, I tend to agree, modulo a minor fix. >> >> If the description were in a context inside a paragraph like this: >>

Re: Bug report: Documentation error in git-bisect man description

I see. Thanks for the clarification. The pairing not being pairs of opposites was indeed, what confused me. So that description was not meant in the sense, that you use these pairs when working with bisect, but instead they are ordered according to the argument possibilities. Sorry for spreading

Re: Bug report: Documentation error in git-bisect man description

Junio C Hamano writes: > Manuel Ullmann 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 belongs to > the newer half

Re: Bug report: Documentation error in git-bisect man description

Manuel Ullmann writes: > Hi, > > there is a mistake in the git-bisect description. > The second paragraph of it says ‘the terms "old" and "new" can be used > in place of "good" and "bad"’. So from a logical point of view the > description part stating the usage syntax

Bug report: Documentation error in git-bisect man description

Hi, there is a mistake in the git-bisect description. The second paragraph of it says ‘the terms "old" and "new" can be used in place of "good" and "bad"’. So from a logical point of view the description part stating the usage syntax should be: git bisect (bad|good) [] git bisect (old|new) [...]