Re: [PATCH 3/4] git-commit-graph.txt: refer to "*commit* graph file"

> On Thu, 20 Sep 2018 at 14:50, Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/19/2018 12:30 PM, Martin Ågren wrote:
>>> The full name, by the way, is not the "commit-graph file" with a dash,
>>> cf. the synopsis. Use the dashless form. (The next commit will fix the
>>> remaining few instances of the "commit-graph file" in this document.)
>> The file is literally at ".git/objects/info/commit-graph" which is why I
>> tried to use "commit-graph" everywhere. Why do you think that "commit
>> graph" is better?
> I noticed the discrepancy between "commit graph file" and "commit-graph
> file" and briefly wondered if it was intentional, i.e., if it meant
> anything, but the dash vs no dash seemed pretty random to me. In order
> to figure out which was (more) correct, I went to the synopsis. But
> admittedly, that was quite arbitrary. For all I know, "the commit-graph
> file" could be the better choice, grammatically.

> There is the file named "commit-graph" as you note, but it might on the
> other hand just as well be called "cg.bin". I would probably try to let
> the filename "commit-graph" influence the user manual only if we would
> have written "cg.bin" instead. For example, if we would talk about how
> you might get out of a hole by deleting the "<...>/commit-graph"
> ("cg.bin") file manually.
>
> But that's certainly not to argue against "the commit-graph file". I'd
> be happy to s/commit graph file/commit-graph file/g instead to keep
> others from wondering if these are two slightly different things. And
> if the concept and the file have the same name, all the better.
>
> If you agree, I'll do that in a v2, where I will also note in the
> Options section that `--object-dir` takes a `<dir>`.