On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 03:07:52PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Sergey Organov <sorganov@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> Keeping the original sentence structure, e.g. > >> > >> ... and those options which imply abbreviating commit object names > >> such as ... > >> > >> would have been what I wrote, instead of "either explicit or implied > >> by", though. > > > > Sorry, but it'd then read: > > > > This negates `--abbrev-commit` and those options which imply > > abbreviating commit object names such as "--oneline". > > > > that again essentially reduces to: > > > > This negates "--oneline" > > "--oneline" means a lot more than "do not use full object name", and > I think we are on the same page with our shared goal of not negating > everything "--oneline" means. We just want to say the option > negates only the "do not use full object name" aspect. > > "and the effect of abbreviating commit objects implied by other > options, such as '--oneline'" may be a more verbose way to say the > same thing, I would think, but that would be overkill. I would have > expected that with common sense readers would think it would be > crazy for --no-abbrev to override everything --oneline means, but if > you found that the original risks such an interpretation, perhaps we > would need to be more verbose and explicit. I dunno. FWIW, as a third-party observer (because you wanted more opinions, right?), I found the result of Sergey's original patch easy to read and understand. I also think it's unlikely for people to misinterpret the current text, but it does not hurt to be more precise just in case. -Peff
