Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jonathan Nieder <[email protected]> writes:
>> In other words, I want the input format and output format completely
>> decoupled.
>
> I thought that the original suggestion was to use "hashname:" as a
> prefix to specify input format. In other words
>
> sha1:abababab
> sha256:abababab
That's fine with me too, and it's probably easier to understand than
^{sha1}. The disadvantage is that it clashes with existing meaning of
"path abababab in branch sha1". If we're okay with that change, then
it's a good syntax.
If we have a collection of proposed syntaxes, I can get some help from
a UI designer here, too, to help find any ramifications we've missed.
[...]
> I do not think ^{hashname} mixes well with ^{objecttype} syntax at
> all as an output specifier, either. It would make sense to be more
> explicit, I would think, e.g.
>
> git rev-parse --output=sha1 sha256:abababab
Agreed. I don't think it makes sense to put output specifiers in
revision names. It would create a lot of unnecessary complexity and
ambiguity.
Thanks,
Jonathan
