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

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

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

>> There may have been other discussions, but the discussion thread
>> that directly led to the said commit is:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.63.0508051655480.8418@wgmdd8.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/
>
> That historical context is certainly useful, and definitely explains
> that any work in this area is fraught. Still, absorbing a discussion
> from 2005 as a requirement for making improvements might be creating
> too much of a barrier to entry? idk.

I do not think I ever hinted that it was a requirement (which would
have meant that an author to post such a patch without studying the
history behind it was somehow an evil person).

But now all of us have a readily available reference to the earlier
story, we can make a more informed discussion.  As I said elsewhere,
I wouldn't be surprised if there are many places that pretends as if
ID or Hash were canonical terminology and confuse readers by being
inconsistent, and we should address such discrepancies as we find
them.

Thanks.