Re: [PATCH v2] doc: clarify that "git bisect" accepts one or more good commits

"Robert P. J. Day" [off-list ref] writes:

  in this sense, i don't think "indicate" and "identify" are
completely interchangeable. in my mind, the word "identify" does
nothing more than, you know, point at something and say, "that one,
that's the one i'm talking about;" it goes no further than that.

  on the other hand, the word "indicate" (in my mind) implies that
you're about to provide some *property* or *quality* of something, and
you do exactly that in the earlier quote:

I do not think the two words have different connotations, so we are
in agreement.  You do not necessarily need a property in mind when
you "identify" a commit.  You could just "identify" this and that
commits to yourself, to keep them in mind.  You _also_ can have a
property in mind and "identify" this commit as a good one, and that
commit as a bad one.

But identifying a commit as bad (or another one as good) alone to
yourself does not get anything started.  In order to advance the
bisection process, you need to tell the "git bisect" machinery that
"this commit is good", "that commit is bad", etc.  I would think
"indicate" is a verb with better connotation than "identify" for
describing that action.  You indicate something *to* *somebody, and
in this case you indicate that this commit is good and that commit
is bad to git.