From: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rev-parse: clarify documentation for the --verify option
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 09:49:13 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <515A8D79.6050808@alum.mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vli92jijz.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On 04/01/2013 06:56 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@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
mhagger@alum.mit.edu
http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-04-02 7:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-03-30 6:44 [PATCH] rev-parse: clarify documentation for the --verify option Michael Haggerty
2013-03-31 22:52 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-01 16:56 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-02 7:49 ` Michael Haggerty [this message]
2013-04-02 14:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2013-04-02 16:28 ` Michael Haggerty
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=515A8D79.6050808@alum.mit.edu \
--to=mhagger@alum.mit.edu \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).