Possible documentation error for "git revisions"

The Documentation/revisions.txt page may have a couple of errors in it, regarding "searching for commits by commit message"

it states:

':/<text>', e.g. ':/fix nasty bug':: A colon, followed by a slash, followed by a text, names a commit whose commit message matches the specified regular expression. This name returns the youngest matching commit which is reachable from any ref, including HEAD. The regular expression can match any part of the commit message. To match messages starting with a string, one can use e.g. ':/^foo'. The special sequence ':/!' is reserved for modifiers to what is matched. ':/!-foo' performs a negative match, while ':/!!foo' matches a literal '!' character, followed by 'foo'. Any other sequence beginning with ':/!' is reserved for now. Depending on the given text, the shell's word splitting rules might require additional quoting.

However, I believe that the ":/<text>" syntax now *always* refers to a file in the tree-object, never a search-by-commit-message. (I wasn't previously aware of this change, but I like it!)

Instead, the syntax "HEAD^{/<text>}" *does* appear to perform the search described by the documentation for ":/<text>". This includes the possibility of matching HEAD itself. in my own workflow, I've never noticed the distinction, but this does feel like a possible error in code, rather than documentation. That said, removing the ability for "HEAD^{/text}" to match HEAD would potentially leave rev-parse with no method for referring to "the first match, even if that match is HEAD itself", which I think would be bad to remove. Personally, I always type HEAD^{/text} (or HEAD^{/!-text}) when searching for something "before" HEAD, but I do feel that I would "expect" that to match HEAD as well, for what it's worth.

Though fixing this as a matter of documentation would be a very small change, I don't have time right now personally to make it (including necessary steps of verification, tracing the history of when the documentation became out-of-date, ensuring this is a documentation, not code, issue, etc). So I'm unfortunately probably going to "fire and forget" this bug report.

Thanks to anyone who can complete this!

-- Will Palmer