Re: [PATCH] glossary: use "object ID" as the canonical term

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

"D. Ben Knoble" <ben.knoble@gmail.com> writes:

> I can't speak for Julia, but I read her attempt here to clarify things
> in line with the ways folks usually use "ID" vs. "name." Of course we
> don't always want to let what other people say dictate our
> terminology, but in cases where we can make things easier for folks to
> understand by using vocabulary in line with their expectations rather
> than subverting it, I think that's a worthy goal.

That goes both ways.  You can tell that to those who are subverting
terminology that have clearly been documented for the past 20 years
in our official glossary ;-).

> I still find it strange to call "main" an object ID ;) even if our
> current terminology says that's fine. Heck, the glossary says a name
> is a "unique" identifier… so there ought not to be more than one way
> to spell it, even if there are many notations to refer to it? Alas…

I do not think it is OK.  "main" is *NOT* an object ID or object
name.  "main" can be used where an object name or object identifier
is called for to uniquely specify an object.