Hi Denton, On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 04:19:03AM -0700, Denton Liu wrote: > When a user needed the null OID for scripting purposes, it used to be > very easy: hardcode 40 zeros. However, since Git started supporting > SHA-256, this assumption became false which may break some scripts. > Allow users to fix their broken scripts by providing users with a > hash-agnostic method of obtaining the null OID. I have not been very involved in the hash transition, so please take my comments with a grain of salt (and if they are misplaced, feel free to ignore them). This '--null-oid' thing makes me wonder exactly what it does. Yours gives a type-less object back, but what about scripts that want the OID of the empty blob or tree? Would having something like '--null-oid[=<type>]' be useful for them? On the one hand, it seems like a thing that would be useful, but on the other, those aren't *the* null OID when 'type' is 'blob' or 'tree'. A more appropriate name in that case might be '--empty-oid=tree'. So, that's an argument that '--null-oid' and '--empty-oid[=<type>]' should be two distinct things. I think I like that best. Do you have any thoughts about it? Thanks, Taylor
