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.
Because ultimately you look at the diff of changes, which significantly limits the amount of code you need to examine to find the bug (or at least something that uncovered the bug).
Why are they calling it diff debugging?
They mention git (and only gitas a tool), so why not call it bisect like git does?
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 abouthg bisect) there must be a reason he is not preferring “bisect debugging,” for example.Because ultimately you look at the diff of changes, which significantly limits the amount of code you need to examine to find the bug (or at least something that uncovered the bug).