On Thu, 2 Nov 2023 at 10:18, brian m. carlson <sandals@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 2023-11-02 at 08:53:36, Martin Ågren wrote: > > 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.) > > Not specifying an option would make this ambiguous. What if I have a > file named "e69de29bb2d1d6434b8b29ae775ad8c2e48c5391"? Is that the > empty blob, or is it that file? Normally we have ways to disambiguate > this, but those don't work here because of the positional arguments. I didn't intend to suggest dropping the new option altogether, sorry for being unclear. I meant moving from `--object-id` to something else, such as `--blob` that you mention. Completely agreed that something explicit is needed here and that heuristics aren't possible. > I think the name is fine. We don't typically use the phrase "blob ID" > anywhere, but we do say "object ID". We'd need to say "--blob", but > I'm not sure that's an improvement, and I fear it may be less > understandable. Agreed. Thanks. Martin
