On Wed, Feb 06 2019, Jeff King wrote: > On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 12:50:23AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > >> >> As this is pretty-much a test-only option, perhaps going longer but >> >> more descriptive would make sense? >> >> >> >> git rev-parse --compute-abbrev-length-for <object-count> >> >> >> >> may be an overkill, but something along those lines. >> > >> > You could even default <object-count> to the number of objects in the >> > repository. Which implies that perhaps the best spot is the command >> > where we already count the number of objects, git-count-objects. >> >> That's documented as reporting loose objects by default, although it has >> a full report with -v. > > True, though I think that's mostly for historical reasons. It _could_ be > part of the full report, like: > > $ git count-objects -v > ... > abbrev-len: 12 > > but from your test-script usage, I'd expect you'd want to be able to > feed a fake count to it, like: > > git count-objects --compute-abbrev-len=1234 Yeah for just reporting it count-objects makes more sense. I think I'll add it there... > or something (of course you _could_ also make a repository with N > objects, but that's a lot more expensive). ...but yes, for the test script & to export the info I'd like to have the "what's the abbrev length for a repo with N objects" option, which would be for rev-parse. >> Maybe rev-parse isn't the right place, I just picked it because it seems >> to be the general utility belt for stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere. >> >> But putting it in git-count-objects seems like a bit more of a stretch >> given the above. > > I dunno. It seems like less of a stretch to me, but it is true that > rev-parse is already a kitchen sink repository. I can live with it > either way. > > -Peff
