Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 04/01/2013 06:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>>> Because the primary use case of this option is to implement end-user
>>> input validation, I think it would be helpful to clarify use of the
>>> peeler here. Perhaps
>>> ...
>>
>> A "SQUASH???" patch on top of your original is queued on 'pu',
>> together with the earlier "^{object}" peeler patch. Comments,
>> improvements, etc. would be nice.
>
> Yes, your version is better. I would make one change, though. In your
>
> + Make sure the single given parameter can be turned into a
> + raw 20-byte SHA-1 that can be used to access the object
> + database, and emit it to the standard output. If it can't,
> + error out.
>
> it could be made clearer that exactly one parameter should be provided.
> Maybe
>
> + Verify that exactly one parameter is provided, and that it
That is probably better (I was hoping "the single" would mean the
same to the reader, though). Thanks.
> + can be turned into a raw 20-byte SHA-1 that can be used to
> + access the object database. If so, emit the SHA-1 to the
> + standard output; otherwise, error out.
>
> But this makes it sound a little like the "raw 20-byte SHA-1" will be
> output to stdout,...
I did consider that point, wrote "and outputs 40-hex" in my earlier
draft, and then rejected it because it was even more misleading.
The output follows the usual rules for "rev" parameters, e.g.
git rev-parse --short --verify HEAD
git rev-parse --symbolic --verify v1.8.2^{tree}
and "--verify" does not mean 40-hex output. That is why I left it
vague as "emit it".
I agree that the wording incorrectly hints that you may be able to
get 20-byte raw output. I didn't find a satisfactory phrasing.
--
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