From 3f05402ac00ed6415b1df2b6823471e017817432 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Couder Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2017 15:44:05 +0100 Subject: Documentation/bisect: improve on (bad|new) and (good|bad) The following part of the description: git bisect (bad|new) [] git bisect (good|old) [...] may be a bit confusing, as a reader may wonder if instead it should be: git bisect (bad|good) [] git bisect (old|new) [...] Of course the difference between "[]" and "[...]" should hint that there is a good reason for the way it is. But we can further clarify and complete the description by adding "" and "" to the "bad|new" and "good|old" alternatives. Signed-off-by: Christian Couder Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano --- Documentation/git-bisect.txt | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/git-bisect.txt b/Documentation/git-bisect.txt index 2044fe6820..b35218adf0 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-bisect.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-bisect.txt @@ -18,8 +18,8 @@ on the subcommand: git bisect start [--term-{old,good}= --term-{new,bad}=] [--no-checkout] [ [...]] [--] [...] - git bisect (bad|new) [] - git bisect (good|old) [...] + git bisect (bad|new|) [] + git bisect (good|old|) [...] git bisect terms [--term-good | --term-bad] git bisect skip [(|)...] git bisect reset [] -- cgit v1.2.3