Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> writes:

> 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

That is probably better (I was hoping "the single" would mean the
same to the reader, though).  Thanks.

> +     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,...

I did consider that point, wrote "and outputs 40-hex" in my earlier
draft, and then rejected it because it was even more misleading.
The output follows the usual rules for "rev" parameters, e.g.

        git rev-parse --short --verify HEAD
        git rev-parse --symbolic --verify v1.8.2^{tree}

and "--verify" does not mean 40-hex output.  That is why I left it
vague as "emit it".

I agree that the wording incorrectly hints that you may be able to
get 20-byte raw output.  I didn't find a satisfactory phrasing.

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

Reply via email to