[PATCH 0/1] doc: git-bisect: change plural form to singular

[PATCH 0/1] doc: git-bisect: change plural form to singular

[Britton Leo Kerin]

Correct the usage in git-bisect documentation to use singular form for a
repeatable argument as other commands do.

I reported this tiny issue previously but didn't see a response so I
thought I'd use it as a chance to get up to speed on the patch
submission process.  Sorry if no response meant no interest on this
issue.

Britton Leo Kerin (1):
  doc: use singular form of repeatable path arg

 Documentation/git-bisect.txt | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)


base-commit: 055bb6e9969085777b7fab83e3fee0017654f134
--
2.43.0

[PATCH v2 0/2] doc: bisect: change plural paths to singular pathspec

[Britton Leo Kerin]

Britton Leo Kerin (2):
  doc: use singular form of repeatable path arg
  doc: refer to pathspec instead of path

 Documentation/git-bisect.txt | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

Range-diff against v1:
1:  90c081dcab ! 1:  da40e4736b doc: use singular form of repeatable path arg
    @@ Commit message
         later document text mentions 'path' arguments, while it doesn't mention
         'paths'.

    -    Signed-off-by: Britton L Kerin <britton.kergin@gmail.com>
    +    Signed-off-by: Britton Leo Kerin <britton.kergin@gmail.com>

      ## Documentation/git-bisect.txt ##
     @@ Documentation/git-bisect.txt: The command takes various subcommands, and different options depending
-:  ---------- > 2:  d932b6d501 doc: refer to pathspec instead of path
--
2.43.0

[PATCH v2 1/2] doc: use singular form of repeatable path arg

[Britton Leo Kerin]

This is more correct because the <path>... doc syntax already indicates
that the arg is "array-type".  It's how other tools do it.  Finally, the
later document text mentions 'path' arguments, while it doesn't mention
'paths'.

Signed-off-by: Britton Leo Kerin <britton.kergin@gmail.com>
---
 Documentation/git-bisect.txt | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/Documentation/git-bisect.txt b/Documentation/git-bisect.txt
index aa02e46224..b798282788 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-bisect.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-bisect.txt
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ The command takes various subcommands, and different options depending
 on the subcommand:
 
  git bisect start [--term-(new|bad)=<term-new> --term-(old|good)=<term-old>]
-		  [--no-checkout] [--first-parent] [<bad> [<good>...]] [--] [<paths>...]
+		  [--no-checkout] [--first-parent] [<bad> [<good>...]] [--] [<path>...]
  git bisect (bad|new|<term-new>) [<rev>]
  git bisect (good|old|<term-old>) [<rev>...]
  git bisect terms [--term-good | --term-bad]
-- 
2.43.0

[PATCH v2 2/2] doc: refer to pathspec instead of path

[Britton Leo Kerin]

Signed-off-by: Britton Leo Kerin <britton.kerin@gmail.com>
---
 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 b798282788..8e01f1d618 100644
--- a/Documentation/git-bisect.txt
+++ b/Documentation/git-bisect.txt
@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ The command takes various subcommands, and different options depending
 on the subcommand:
 
  git bisect start [--term-(new|bad)=<term-new> --term-(old|good)=<term-old>]
-		  [--no-checkout] [--first-parent] [<bad> [<good>...]] [--] [<path>...]
+		  [--no-checkout] [--first-parent] [<bad> [<good>...]] [--] [<pathspec>...]
  git bisect (bad|new|<term-new>) [<rev>]
  git bisect (good|old|<term-old>) [<rev>...]
  git bisect terms [--term-good | --term-bad]
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ Cutting down bisection by giving more parameters to bisect start
 
 You can further cut down the number of trials, if you know what part of
 the tree is involved in the problem you are tracking down, by specifying
-path parameters when issuing the `bisect start` command:
+pathspec parameters when issuing the `bisect start` command:
 
 ------------
 $ git bisect start -- arch/i386 include/asm-i386
-- 
2.43.0

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] doc: bisect: change plural paths to singular pathspec

[Taylor Blau]

On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 07:02:05PM -0900, Britton Leo Kerin wrote:
> Britton Leo Kerin (2):
>   doc: use singular form of repeatable path arg
>   doc: refer to pathspec instead of path
>
>  Documentation/git-bisect.txt | 4 ++--
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Range-diff against v1:
> 1:  90c081dcab ! 1:  da40e4736b doc: use singular form of repeatable path arg
>     @@ Commit message
>          later document text mentions 'path' arguments, while it doesn't mention
>          'paths'.
>
>     -    Signed-off-by: Britton L Kerin <britton.kergin@gmail.com>
>     +    Signed-off-by: Britton Leo Kerin <britton.kergin@gmail.com>
>
>       ## Documentation/git-bisect.txt ##
>      @@ Documentation/git-bisect.txt: The command takes various subcommands, and different options depending
> -:  ---------- > 2:  d932b6d501 doc: refer to pathspec instead of path
> --
> 2.43.0

Hmm. The end-state of these two patches looks good to me, but I probably
would have written this change as a single change from "paths" ->
"pathspec", not "paths" -> "path" -> "pathspec".

Thanks,
Taylor

Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] doc: bisect: change plural paths to singular pathspec

[Junio C Hamano]

Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 07:02:05PM -0900, Britton Leo Kerin wrote:
>> Britton Leo Kerin (2):
>>   doc: use singular form of repeatable path arg
>>   doc: refer to pathspec instead of path
>>
>>  Documentation/git-bisect.txt | 4 ++--
>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> Range-diff against v1:
>> 1:  90c081dcab ! 1:  da40e4736b doc: use singular form of repeatable path arg
>>     @@ Commit message
>>          later document text mentions 'path' arguments, while it doesn't mention
>>          'paths'.
>>
>>     -    Signed-off-by: Britton L Kerin <britton.kergin@gmail.com>
>>     +    Signed-off-by: Britton Leo Kerin <britton.kergin@gmail.com>
>>
>>       ## Documentation/git-bisect.txt ##
>>      @@ Documentation/git-bisect.txt: The command takes various subcommands, and different options depending
>> -:  ---------- > 2:  d932b6d501 doc: refer to pathspec instead of path
>> --
>> 2.43.0
>
> Hmm. The end-state of these two patches looks good to me, but I probably
> would have written this change as a single change from "paths" ->
> "pathspec", not "paths" -> "path" -> "pathspec".

Have we seen a resolution to this comment?  I _think_ it is an OK
approach to take to do this in two steps, if the use of technical
term "pathspec" could be controversial, but since it is not, I am
fine with either one or two patches.  Since we already have the
two-patch version, let's take it.

Thanks.