From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 21:23:45 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 5/5] bisect: allow any terms set by user
Message-ID: <vpqioac3in2.fsf@anie.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqa8vp9ezq.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> they would call "term2" into "term1" somewhere.  e.g.
>
> 	-ancestors of term1.
> 	+ancestors of term1.  For example, if something was buggy in
>         +the old part of the history, you know somewhere the bug was
> 	+fixed, and you want to find the exact commit that fixed it,
>         +you may want to say `git bisect terms fixed broken`; this
>         +way, you would mark a commit that still has the bug with
>         +`broken`, and a newer one after the fix with `fixed`.
>
> or something?

Yes.

> I am wondering (together with the documentation patch) if it would
> be better to be more explicit, instead of term[12], like this:
>
> 	git bisect terms new old

Yes. I eliminated all instance of term1 and term2 in the doc of the
patch, and replaced with <term-old> and <term-new>.

>> +bisect_terms () {
>> +	case "$#" in
>> +	0)
>> +		if test -s "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_TERMS"
>> +		then
>> +			{
>> +			read term1
>> +			read term2
>> +			}<"$GIT_DIR/BISECT_TERMS"
>> +			gettextln "Your current terms are $term1 and $term2."
>
> The same comment on this part.  Instead of "git bisect terms" that
> just says "You are using $term1 and $term2", the users would benefit
> if it said "You are using $term1 for newer state and $term2 for
> older state" [*1*].

Done. It's up to date on

https://github.com/moy/git/tree/bisect-terms

Will resend.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/