Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] git-merge-file doc: drop "-file" from argument placeholders

From: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 2, 2023, 08:53 UTC
Message-ID: <CAN0heSrv7MPcEwkq4uEtv9uBbqm4FLKQLE3gdsEbqKkxPXOj5A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq8r7howsq.fsf@gitster.g>

On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 00:53, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

>
> "brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> writes:
>
> > From: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@gmail.com>
> >
> > `git merge-file` takes three positional arguments. Each of them is
> > documented as `<foo-file>`. In preparation for teaching this command to
> > alternatively take three object IDs, make these placeholders a bit more
>
> Minor nit.  Don't we want to say "three blob object names"?  Unless
> we plan to grow this feature into accepting three tree object names,
> that is.

Hmm, yeah. Or just "three non-filename arguments". I do wonder: doesn't this mean that the second patch could/should possibly move away from the notion of "object ID"/`--object-id`? (That's not trying to shift any blame from one patch to the other, that's my honest reaction.)

Ah, yes, I thought I recognized this. Quoting your response [1] to v2:

Show 5 quoted lines

> I briefly thought about suggesting --blob-id instead of --object-id
> simply because you'd never want to feed it trees and commits, but
> the error message from read_mmblob() the users would get mentions
> 'blob' to signal that non-blob objects are unwelcome, so the name of
> the optionwould be OK as-is.

Maybe you having a similar reaction a second time makes this smell a bit more?

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqo7ge2xzl.fsf@gitster.g/

Martin