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

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Manuel Ullmann <ullman.alias@posteo.de> 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>...]