On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 10:39:18PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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.
No, I understood that. You just mentioned "list consensus" so I was
trying to give my two cents. ;)
> > 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.
By negative, I just meant potential confusion when we are half-way there
(e.g., "foo^{TREE}" works but "git cat-file TREE foo" does not).
> 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".
Yes, I agree that that is the right path forward.
-Peff