Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > OK, I see. So, what is the best way to handle this? Immediately follow > content change patch with another patch that only re-flows? Or no reflowing at all. >> the parents". I do not know if the updated phrasing is better. The >> "name" in the original was meant to be a short-hand for "object name", >> and I would support a change to spell it out to clarify; "reference" >> can be a vague word that can mean different things in Git, and when >> the word is given without context, most Git people would think that >> the word refers to "refs", but that is definitely not what the new >> commit records, so... > > I won't insist on the change, but "name" sounded wrong to me, and > "reference" was most general term I was able to come up with in this > context. > ... > Last, if "reference" is not good enough and we get to internals anyway, > why not say SHA1 then? Because that is still colloquial? I think s/name/object name/ is a sensible change, but not s/name/reference/.