On Thu, Jun 23 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Thanks for re-rolling, having taken a look a closer look at the tests >> I'm concerned about the output format for some of the specifiers, see >> below. > > Thanks for raising these issues. I agree with you on many of them. > In addition to what you covered .... > >>> +path:: >>> + The pathname of the file which is in the index. >> I think that for all these it might be clearer to say "recorded in the >> index" rather than "of the file which is in the index" > > I think we would call this "name". The name of the existing option > that controls how they are shown is "--full-name", not "--full-path", > for example. To the extent that we got this wrong it was me in 455923e0a15 (ls-tree: introduce "--format" option, 2022-03-23), but given that we have that I think it makes sense to have this be consistent with ls-tree. FWIW ls-tree also uses "name" options, but its docs talked about "<path>", so I thought it was more helpful to pick that. We also say that we will "show the full path names" in that documentation.
