On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Mark Lodato <lodatom@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> There exist no commands that accept a <commit> but not a <commit-ish>, > > I have one worry about this and [07/12]. The droppage of -ish would make > sense from the point of view of describing command line arguments, > i.e. what you can give to the commands, but it would make it impossible > for us to talk about places that _only_ tree not arbitrary tree-ish can > appear. For example, don't we ever talk about something like this? > > A tree object is a sequence of records, each of which describes the > type of entry, object name, and the name of the entry in the tree. > When the type is "tree", the object name must name a tree, when the > type is "gitlink", the object name must name a commit, ... > > Other than that small worry, I think the series goes in the right > direction. Yes, it would probably be best to leave the -ish terms in the glossary (which I evidently did by mistake) and in the comments and documentation, but just not use them as an identifier in angle brackets. For example, a command accepting a <tree> would also accept commits or tags unless otherwise noted, but the term "tree object" would still only refer to an actual tree object, not a tree-ish. When it is unclear, one can use the -ish term, like I just did in that last sentence. I'll wait a few days to see if there are any more comments, and then I'll try fixing up this series. -- 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