On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 04:49:34PM +0200, Michael J Gruber wrote: >> >>> --- a/Documentation/git-cat-file.txt >>> +++ b/Documentation/git-cat-file.txt >>> @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ If '--batch' is specified, output of the following form is printed for each >>> object specified on stdin: >>> >>> ------------ >>> -<sha1> SP <type> SP <size> LF >>> +<SHA-1> SP <type> SP <size> LF >>> <contents> LF >>> ------------ >> >> Maybe it is just me, but I find the original for this one easier to >> read. Perhaps because <sha1> is really a variable name here (but for a >> human reader to interpret instead of a compiler), so I find the >> punctuation and capitalization distracting. >> >> I wonder if all <sha1> should simply be left as-is. > > Or spell them using their official terminology "object name". Why is the "official" terminology "object name", wouldn't "id" work better? SHA-1 is simply one hash function, what git has been referring to "sha1" is actually the SHA-1 digest. This digest has been used as a checksum (or hash sum) but also as a unique identifier, therefore "id" would work just fine. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html