> * "as they have been read from stdin"; drop "from stdin" here, as > we already know we are talking about the mode that reads object > names from the standard input and there is no need to repeat it. it is needed to explain that git will not do any optimization to the order of paths before printing the output. I entered a discussion with someone who was worried that git may optimize the paths order because it is not stated clearly that output follows the same order as input. > * "considered as an object" -> "considered to be an object name" or > "used as an object name" [*]. This primarily comes from my > spinal reflex against "consider as", plus my desire to be more > precise in terminology. this is not related to my changes, I just moved this line but didn't change it. Thanks, ahmed akef Thanks, ahmed akef On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 9:20 AM Ahmed Akef <aemed.akef.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > * "as they have been read from stdin"; drop "from stdin" here, as > > we already know we are talking about the mode that reads object > > names from the standard input and there is no need to repeat it. > > it is needed to explain that git will not do any optimization to the order of paths > before printing the output. I entered a discussion with someone who was worried > that git may optimize the paths order because it is not stated clearly that output follows > the same order as input. > > > * "considered as an object" -> "considered to be an object name" or > > "used as an object name" [*]. This primarily comes from my > > spinal reflex against "consider as", plus my desire to be more > > precise in terminology. > > this is not related to my changes, I just moved this line but didn't changed it. > > Thanks, > ahmed akef > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 9:18 AM Ahmed Akef <aemed.akef.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > * "as they have been read from stdin"; drop "from stdin" here, as >> > we already know we are talking about the mode that reads object >> > names from the standard input and there is no need to repeat it. >> >> it is needed to explain that git will not do any optimization to the order of paths >> before printing the output. I entered a discussion with someone who was worried >> that git may optimize the paths order because it is not stated clearly that output follows >> the same order as input. >> >> > * "considered as an object" -> "considered to be an object name" or >> > "used as an object name" [*]. This primarily comes from my >> > spinal reflex against "consider as", plus my desire to be more >> > precise in terminology. >> >> this is not related to my changes, I just moved this line but didn't changed it. >> >> Thanks, >> ahmed akef >> >> >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 7:19 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> "ahmed akef via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> >>> > If `--batch` or `--batch-check` is given, `cat-file` will read objects >>> > -from stdin, one per line, and print information about them. By default, >>> > -the whole line is considered as an object, as if it were fed to >>> > -linkgit:git-rev-parse[1]. >>> > +from stdin, one per line, and print information about them in the same >>> > +order as they have been read from stdin. By default, the whole line is >>> > +considered as an object, as if it were fed to linkgit:git-rev-parse[1]. >>> >>> A few "Huh?" I had while reading the above. >>> >>> * "as they have been read from stdin"; drop "from stdin" here, as >>> we already know we are talking about the mode that reads object >>> names from the standard input and there is no need to repeat it. >>> >>> * "considered as an object" -> "considered to be an object name" or >>> "used as an object name" [*]. This primarily comes from my >>> spinal reflex against "consider as", plus my desire to be more >>> precise in terminology. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Nothing mentioned below should be part of this patch, but as I >>> noticed it while studying the current documentation to prepare this >>> review, I'll record them as #leftoverbits. >>> >>> The description of how lines read from the standard input should >>> look like needs more work. Documentation on "--batch" says "the >>> input lines must specify the path, separated by whitespace", but is >>> it clear that it expects "<object name>", followed by a whitespace >>> (not necessarily a single SP), followed by "<path>"? Without prior >>> knowledge, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody read the text as >>> asking for paths separated by whitespace, e.g. >>> >>> README.txt COPYING Makefile >>> >>> that gives three paths. The text needs to be tightened to say >>> something like "must give the path after the object name, separated >>> by whitespace. The path is used to find the textconv and smudge >>> filter". >>> >>> The section also says "See the section BATCH OUTPUT below for >>> details." but the section it refers to does not talk anything about >>> this whitespace thing. It also is unclear what would happen if the >>> input line says: >>> >>> :COPYING Makefile >>> >>> Would it apply the textconv/filters meant for Makefile to the blob >>> stored at COPYING in the index? If we say >>> >>> :README.txt >>> >>> would the command be smart enough to know that the blob came from >>> the path README.txt and apply the textconv/filters meant for that >>> path, without the input repeating the same information twice like: >>> >>> :README.txt README.txt >>> >>> or something silly like that? >>> >>> >>> [Reference] >>> >>> * https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/consider-and-consider-as >>> >>>
