From: Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 03 May 2009 01:26:03 GMT
Subject: Re: [doc] User Manual Suggestion
Message-ID: <b4087cc50905021826o2b259009pda15dcaaa135ca38@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ca433830905021818v5c99cce4q57902eba8ff3d7fc@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 20:18, Mark Lodato <lodatom@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/5/2 Michael Witten <mfwitten@gmail.com>:
>> I also dislike the use of 'name' rather than 'hash'; a name is
>> something provided by the user, but a hash is something computed. The
>> use of sha[-]1 is even more egregious.
>
> What about "identifier" as a compromise between "hash" and "name"?
> This is really what we're talking about - a way of identifying
> objects.

It's the same problem, in my opinion. '[Cryptographic] hash' says so
much more and still remains quite generic.

Also, continuing with 'sha1' doesn't seem satisfactory:

    http://marc.info/?l=git&m=124068702303042&w=2