From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 23:18:18 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] doc/git-bisect: clarify `git bisect run` syntax
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:
> > the patch subject becomes a bit outdated with this addition.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.

> > 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.

> 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.