Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > FWIW, I cannot see us ever adding TREE (or Tree) as a separate type. > It's too confusing for no gain. We'd call it "tree2" or something more > obvious. In case it was not clear, I didn't mean to say I _want_ to leave that door open. Well, I cannot imagine it was unclear, as I said I do not at all mind declaring that all object names will be lowercase to allow us freely downcase what we got at the UI level. > So I don't mind closing that door, but I'm not sure if a partial > conversion (where some commands are case-insensitive but others aren't > yet) might not leave us in a more confusing place. Exactly. > I dunno. I guess I have never wanted to type "^{Tree}" in the first > place, so I do not personally see the _benefit_. Which makes it easy to > see even small negatives as a net loss. As to the potential _benefit_, I do not see much either myself, but we already are seeing somebody cared enough to throw us a patch, so to some people there are clearly perceived benefit. I do not think closing the door for typenames that are not lowercase is a negative change at all. I just wanted the patch to make it clear that it is making such a system-wide design decision and casting it in stone. Which includes that "cat-file <type>" and "hash-object -t <type>" get the same case-insensitivity update and probably writing that design decision down somewhere in the documentation, perhaps in the glossary where we talk about the "object type".