Re: [PATCH 02/23] refs.h: clarify docstring for the ref_transaction_update()-related fns
- From
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- Date
- May 18, 2017, 04:13 UTC
- Message-ID
- <xmqq60gyvm2u.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAGZ79kaMYVp7SLq3MspC6f45=QUZM=mJMxNDfwVj+1cgEhMQ6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
Show 14 quoted lines
> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> wrote: >> In particular, make it clear that they make copies of the sha1 >> arguments. > > A couple weeks ago we had plans on getting rid of SHA1 in > "the near future" IIRC. Would it make sense to not go down > the SHA1 road further and document this in a more abstract way? > > s/SHA1/object name/ > > essentially, but I guess one of Brians future series' may pick this > up as well. > > I am just hesitant to introduce more sha1-ism at this point.
Don't worry too much about it. These new paragraphs explain existing new_sha1 and old_sha1 parameters, and when they are updated to new_oid/old_oid, the comment will get updated at the same time to match.