On 04/01/2013 06:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Because the primary use case of this option is to implement end-user
>> input validation, I think it would be helpful to clarify use of the
>> peeler here. Perhaps
>> ...
>
> A "SQUASH???" patch on top of your original is queued on 'pu',
> together with the earlier "^{object}" peeler patch. Comments,
> improvements, etc. would be nice.
Yes, your version is better. I would make one change, though. In your
+ Make sure the single given parameter can be turned into a
+ raw 20-byte SHA-1 that can be used to access the object
+ database, and emit it to the standard output. If it can't,
+ error out.
it could be made clearer that exactly one parameter should be provided.
Maybe
+ Verify that exactly one parameter is provided, and that it
+ can be turned into a raw 20-byte SHA-1 that can be used to
+ access the object database. If so, emit the SHA-1 to the
+ standard output; otherwise, error out.
But this makes it sound a little like the "raw 20-byte SHA-1" will be
output to stdout, whereas both the input and the output are in fact
40-character hex-encoded SHA-1s. Perhaps a further change
s/raw 20-byte SHA-1/full SHA-1/
would avoid the false implication?
Michael
--
Michael Haggerty
mhag...@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
