Re: [PATCH v2] doc/git-bisect: clarify `git bisect run` syntax
- From
Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
- Date
- Oct 23, 2023, 23:18 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAPig+cS7-YrWf=cxbq6V8FH1BdtoqAS-EKzxF-ha-A0A6_91ew@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAH1-q0hNSKgr1-dtZac=z7Bx15gON0Y-1pyBM57zuXaFPaJJKQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 6:53 PM Javier Mora <cousteaulecommandant@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> > the patch subject becomes a bit outdated with this addition. > > Right; I wanted to change it to something like "clarify `git bisect > run` syntax and other minor changes" but wanted to keep the title > concise. > I guess I could change it to just "clarify `git bisect` syntax" though > remove the "run").
Yup.
Show 14 quoted lines
> > the following two lines are already referencing placeholders > > <term-new> and <term-old> > > That's why I added it; that `(bad|new|<term-new>)` felt a bit awkward > with no previous explanation of what <term-new> was. > > > ...now we have an inconsistency again since this text just uses the > > generic <term>. However, I haven't convinced myself that we need to > > care about this inconsistency. > > I thought about that, but in THAT case it wasn't necessary because > <term-new> and <term-old> are never used there (and I wanted to avoid > making -h too long). But it's true that it feels inconsistent; I may > add it just for the sake of consistency.
I don't feel strongly about the inconsistency at this point.
Show 6 quoted lines
> Overall, maybe I should leave that change to a separate patch, even if > it's a minor correction. (This made more sense when I had in mind the > plan to move everything from description to synopsis so I would need > to touch all those lines anyway.) The changes will be compatible > anyway (they're far away enough to not cause merge conflicts). What > do you think?
I can certainly see the "{new,bad}" to "(new|bad") and <term> to <new-term>/<old-term> changes being separated out, making this a two- or three-patch series.