From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] Hash name is SHA-1 Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 15:46:00 -0800 Message-ID: <7vzm85tkqv.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <11697294071178-git-send-email-vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl> <20070125230302.GB13677@moooo.ath.cx> <7vr6ti659k.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <200701261154.20723.andyparkins@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org To: Andy Parkins X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jan 27 00:46:10 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HAalj-0007by-NM for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:46:08 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752176AbXAZXqE (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:46:04 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752182AbXAZXqE (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:46:04 -0500 Received: from fed1rmmtao02.cox.net ([68.230.241.37]:45138 "EHLO fed1rmmtao02.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752176AbXAZXqC (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:46:02 -0500 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20070126234601.MCZB9717.fed1rmmtao02.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:46:01 -0500 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id Fzl31W00a1kojtg0000000; Fri, 26 Jan 2007 18:45:04 -0500 User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Andy Parkins writes: > As a further to the above cleanups, I'm also planning to fix all the sha1 > named variables to be "hash" or "object" or something. It strikes me that > this plan is related to this cleanup and might fix some of the issues like: > >> + "git-read-tree ( | " >> + "[[-m [--aggressive] | --reset | --prefix=] " >> + "[-u | -i]] [--exclude-per-directory=] " >> + " [ []])"; I've thought about this more than once but I do not think it is worth to rename variable and functions wholesale. When we do fix-ups to a particular function that has "unsigned char sha1[20]" renaming the variable to hash[OBNAME_SIZE] at the same time would be of less impact, although the clean-up may take longer. On the other hand, I think the usage strings are fair game.