Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. Yup, I think I said the same already ;-)
