From: Felipe Contreras Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:18:01 GMT Subject: Re: [doc] User Manual Suggestion Message-ID: <94a0d4530904250318w7f368ea6hb5d59558aedc5c4f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20090424231436.GA15058@coredump.intra.peff.net> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:14 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 07:11:40PM -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > >> > Let's start a reformation of the git terminology to use analogies that >> > have been around since the dawn of computing: 'memory', 'address', and >> > 'pointer'. >> >> I actually think calling them "sha1s" is better, simply because this bit >> of jargon doesn't mean anything else (git deals with email, so "address" >> is overloaded). And the term is already in use for this particular case, >> and it doesn't mean anything else at all (since, of course, the crypto >> thing is "SHA-1", not "sha1"), and it's short (which is important for >> making it easy to look at usage help). > > Junio suggested "object name" in another thread, which I think is nicely > descriptive. It's not a name, it's an identification, so how about "id"? You have tree ids, commit ids, blob ids, and so on. -- Felipe Contreras