Re: [PATCH] dir.c: fix comments to agree with argument name

From: Nipunn Koorapati <nipunn1313@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2020, 19:33 UTC
Message-ID: <CAN8Z4-XdDzJL6k4wZqKJt3=mXajycb0oj-f0WSjcLaFCFRmHKA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqk0vrfi1r.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>

Happy to update it to use the object based terminology, though I'm not sure how the desired final result differs from above. I believe I said "compute oid" in the comment - and it is all in one commit.

gitgitgadget appears to have shown a range-diff from the previous iteration, but the latest iteration is still one commit.

--Nipunn

On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 7:41 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 24 quoted lines

>
> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
> >> - * If "ss" is not NULL, compute SHA-1 of the exclude file and fill
> >> + * If "oid_stat" is not NULL, compute SHA-1 of the exclude file and fill
> >
> > Makes sense. This changed as part of 4b33e60201 (dir: convert struct
> > sha1_stat to use object_id, 2018-01-28). Perhaps it would likewise make
> > sense to stop saying "SHA-1" here, and just say "hash" (or even "object
> > id", though TBH I think the fact that the hash is the same as an
> > object-id is largely an implementation detail).
>
> I do not quite get your "though TBH", though.  I do agree with you
> that it is an implementation detail that an object is named after
> the hash of its contents, so saying "compute object name" probably
> makes sense in more context than "compute hash" outside the narrow
> parts of the code that actually implements how object names are
> computed.  So I would have expected "because TBH", not "though TBH".
>
> Anyway.  Nipunn, can you fix both of them in the same commit, as
> they are addressing a problem from the same cause (i.e. we are no
> longer SHA-1 centric).
>
> Thanks.