Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
>> > The notation <commit> can be misunderstandable only for commit SHA1,
>> > but merge-base accepts any commit references. Like reflog, the name of
>> > arguments should be <ref> instead of <commit>.
>>
>> To me, this change goes too far in the opposite direction: Now it
>> sounds like the command only accepts refs, when it actually accepts
>> any "commit-ish"--i.e., anything that can be coerced to a commit.
>> ("git worktree" uses this term in its usage for "add", for example.)
>
> Maybe we can go for `rev` instead of `ref`?
That's much better than 'ref', but I do not see why 'commit' is
wrong in the first place. There are many ways to name an object,
and `rev` is an old colloquial way to say "object name". Here,
however, we want only commit objects, no?
