That's explained at the end (Revisions). Fowler is probably looking for a general term that can be used to describe this specific way of debugging. Since he is aware of git bisect
(and I'm sure he knows about hg bisect
) there must be a reason he is not preferring "bisect debugging," for example.
Edit: The term diff
has a clear link with version control. bisect
is not that obvious. It may be ambiguous/vague in debugging context. I would still call it "bisect debugging."
Beginning in Git 2.43, Git will realize when it’s about to perform a double-revert, and instead produce the much more pleasing message
Doesn't happen very often, but I'm glad we have a better solution to this now.
This sounds more like a Github question.
Reading the manual? That's cheating!
Apart from the historical value, the most important part of this article now is the "Note of reflection" added 10 years after it's inception:
If your team is doing continuous delivery of software, I would suggest to adopt a much simpler workflow (like GitHub flow) instead of trying to shoehorn git-flow into your team.
I don't think this work flow is relevant any more even for teams that don't do CD, to be honest. It was a messy work flow to begin with and I haven't seen it applied successfully in practice.
Please also consider posting to [email protected]