From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 10:47:42 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Documentation: replace sha1 by SHA-1
Message-ID: <94a0d4530904250347s55a66f47gbaaf5ea42d0c4eac@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vzle5ad8n.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 04:49:34PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote:
>>
>>> --- a/Documentation/git-cat-file.txt
>>> +++ b/Documentation/git-cat-file.txt
>>> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ If '--batch' is specified, output of the following form is printed for each
>>>  object specified on stdin:
>>>
>>>  ------------
>>> -<sha1> SP <type> SP <size> LF
>>> +<SHA-1> SP <type> SP <size> LF
>>>  <contents> LF
>>>  ------------
>>
>> Maybe it is just me, but I find the original for this one easier to
>> read. Perhaps because <sha1> is really a variable name here (but for a
>> human reader to interpret instead of a compiler), so I find the
>> punctuation and capitalization distracting.
>>
>> I wonder if all <sha1> should simply be left as-is.
>
> Or spell them using their official terminology "object name".

Why is the "official" terminology "object name", wouldn't "id" work better?

SHA-1 is simply one hash function, what git has been referring to
"sha1" is actually the SHA-1 digest. This digest has been used as a
checksum (or hash sum) but also as a unique identifier, therefore "id"
would work just fine.

-- 
Felipe Contreras