On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 00:53, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > "brian m. carlson" <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > From: Martin Ågren <martin.agren@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > `git merge-file` takes three positional arguments. Each of them is > > documented as `<foo-file>`. In preparation for teaching this command to > > alternatively take three object IDs, make these placeholders a bit more > > Minor nit. Don't we want to say "three blob object names"? Unless > we plan to grow this feature into accepting three tree object names, > that is. Hmm, yeah. Or just "three non-filename arguments". I do wonder: doesn't this mean that the second patch could/should possibly move away from the notion of "object ID"/`--object-id`? (That's not trying to shift any blame from one patch to the other, that's my honest reaction.) Ah, yes, I thought I recognized this. Quoting your response [1] to v2: > I briefly thought about suggesting --blob-id instead of --object-id > simply because you'd never want to feed it trees and commits, but > the error message from read_mmblob() the users would get mentions > 'blob' to signal that non-blob objects are unwelcome, so the name of > the optionwould be OK as-is. Maybe you having a similar reaction a second time makes this smell a bit more? [1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqqo7ge2xzl.fsf@gitster.g/ Martin
