Denton Liu <liu.denton@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > `objectname`:: > - The 40-hex object name of the object. > + The full hex representation of the object ID of the object. While I agree that it is a good idea to move away from an explicit mention of "40", I do not see why we would want to explain "object name" not as "object name" but as "object ID". IOW, s/ID/name/. > @@ -215,8 +215,9 @@ newline. The available atoms are: > > `deltabase`:: > If the object is stored as a delta on-disk, this expands to the > - 40-hex sha1 of the delta base object. Otherwise, expands to the > - null sha1 (40 zeroes). See `CAVEATS` below. > + full hex representation of the object ID of the delta base > + object. Otherwise, expands to the null OID (all zeroes). See > + `CAVEATS` below. Likewise. Documentation/glossary-content.txt says "object name" is the canonical term, with "object identifier", "hash" etc. as its synonyms. > @@ -235,14 +236,14 @@ newline. > For example, `--batch` without a custom format would produce: > > ------------ > -<sha1> SP <type> SP <size> LF > +<oid> SP <type> SP <size> LF > <contents> LF > ------------ > > Whereas `--batch-check='%(objectname) %(objecttype)'` would produce: > > ------------ > -<sha1> SP <type> LF > +<oid> SP <type> LF > ------------ These look good. Thanks.
