Happy to update it to use the object based terminology, though I'm not sure how the desired final result differs from above. I believe I said "compute oid" in the comment - and it is all in one commit. gitgitgadget appears to have shown a range-diff from the previous iteration, but the latest iteration is still one commit. --Nipunn On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 7:41 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > >> - * If "ss" is not NULL, compute SHA-1 of the exclude file and fill > >> + * If "oid_stat" is not NULL, compute SHA-1 of the exclude file and fill > > > > Makes sense. This changed as part of 4b33e60201 (dir: convert struct > > sha1_stat to use object_id, 2018-01-28). Perhaps it would likewise make > > sense to stop saying "SHA-1" here, and just say "hash" (or even "object > > id", though TBH I think the fact that the hash is the same as an > > object-id is largely an implementation detail). > > I do not quite get your "though TBH", though. I do agree with you > that it is an implementation detail that an object is named after > the hash of its contents, so saying "compute object name" probably > makes sense in more context than "compute hash" outside the narrow > parts of the code that actually implements how object names are > computed. So I would have expected "because TBH", not "though TBH". > > Anyway. Nipunn, can you fix both of them in the same commit, as > they are addressing a problem from the same cause (i.e. we are no > longer SHA-1 centric). > > Thanks.
