Re: [PATCH v2] git-cat-file.txt: remove references to "sha1"

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Feb 23, 2021, 07:48 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqzgzv4433.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <4030a678b923ca6a49b4e5bc6f0cdf4cf6ae7037.1614064618.git.liu.denton@gmail.com>

Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com> writes:

>  `objectname`::
> -	The 40-hex object name of the object.
> +	The full hex representation of the object ID of the object.

While I agree that it is a good idea to move away from an explicit mention of "40", I do not see why we would want to explain "object name" not as "object name" but as "object ID". IOW, s/ID/name/.

Show 9 quoted lines

> @@ -215,8 +215,9 @@ newline. The available atoms are:
>  
>  `deltabase`::
>  	If the object is stored as a delta on-disk, this expands to the
> -	40-hex sha1 of the delta base object. Otherwise, expands to the
> -	null sha1 (40 zeroes). See `CAVEATS` below.
> +	full hex representation of the object ID of the delta base
> +	object. Otherwise, expands to the null OID (all zeroes). See
> +	`CAVEATS` below.

Likewise. Documentation/glossary-content.txt says "object name" is the canonical term, with "object identifier", "hash" etc. as its synonyms.

Show 15 quoted lines

> @@ -235,14 +236,14 @@ newline.
>  For example, `--batch` without a custom format would produce:
>  
>  ------------
> -<sha1> SP <type> SP <size> LF
> +<oid> SP <type> SP <size> LF
>  <contents> LF
>  ------------
>  
>  Whereas `--batch-check='%(objectname) %(objecttype)'` would produce:
>  
>  ------------
> -<sha1> SP <type> LF
> +<oid> SP <type> LF
>  ------------

These look good.

Thanks.