Re: Lets avoid the SHA-1 term (was [doc] User Manual Suggestion)
- From
Björn Steinbrink <b.steinbrink@gmx.de>
- Date
- Apr 27, 2009, 00:28 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20090427002838.GF12338@atjola.homenet>
- In-Reply-To
- <94a0d4530904261638o6cbda368p4f3aa641505a6768@mail.gmail.com>
On 2009.04.27 02:38:40 +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
Show 23 quoted lines
> 2009/4/27 Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>: > > On 2009.04.24 20:48:57 -0400, David Abrahams wrote: > >> > >> On Apr 24, 2009, at 8:01 PM, Michael Witten wrote: > >> > >>>> What's wrong with just calling the object name "object name"? > >>> > >>> What's wrong with calling the object address "object address"? > >> > >> Neither captures the connection to the object's contents. I think > >> "value ID" would be closer, but it's probably too horrible. > > > > I think I asked this in another mail, but I'm quite tired, so just to > > make sure: What do you mean by "value"? I might be weird (I'm not a > > native speaker, so I probably make funny and wrong connotations from > > time to time), but while I can accept "content" to include the type and > > size of the object, the term "value" makes me want to exclude those > > pieces of meta data. So "value" somehow feels wrong to me, as the hash > > covers those two fields. > > Just to summarize. > > Do you agree that SHA-1 is not the proper term to choose?
Yes, IMHO that's too strongly tied to the implementation. But a quick grep run tells me that the "object name" area is probably not where you need to get rid of that. The "object name" term is already used a lot. If you want to ban SHA-1 then the rev-parse man page, describing the "extended SHA1 syntax" would probably be a better place to start (unless you want to "fix" everything at once).
> Do you agree that either 'id' or 'hash' would work fine?
"object id" would work for me, but I'm fine with the existing "object name" as well. I don't like "object hash" (or "object hash id"), because it IMHO doesn't express that well that it's used to identify an object.
> Personally I think there's an advantage of choosing 'hash'; if we pick > 'id' then the user might think that he can change the contents of the > object while keeping the same id, if we pick 'hash' then it's obvious > the 'id' is tied to the content and why.
Heh, if you use "hash", there's no "id" tied to the content, there's just the hash. SCNR ;-) See my other mails why I think that "hash" isn't that advantageous.
Björn