On Wed, Feb 06 2019, Jeff King wrote:

On Tue, Feb 05, 2019 at 12:50:23AM +0100, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

As this is pretty-much a test-only option, perhaps going longer but
more descriptive would make sense?

	git rev-parse --compute-abbrev-length-for <object-count>

may be an overkill, but something along those lines.

You could even default <object-count> to the number of objects in the
repository. Which implies that perhaps the best spot is the command
where we already count the number of objects, git-count-objects.

That's documented as reporting loose objects by default, although it has
a full report with -v.

True, though I think that's mostly for historical reasons. It _could_ be
part of the full report, like:

  $ git count-objects -v
  ...
  abbrev-len: 12

but from your test-script usage, I'd expect you'd want to be able to
feed a fake count to it, like:

  git count-objects --compute-abbrev-len=1234

Yeah for just reporting it count-objects makes more sense. I think I'll
add it there...

or something (of course you _could_ also make a repository with N
objects, but that's a lot more expensive).

...but yes, for the test script & to export the info I'd like to have
the "what's the abbrev length for a repo with N objects" option, which
would be for rev-parse.

quoted

Maybe rev-parse isn't the right place, I just picked it because it seems
to be the general utility belt for stuff that doesn't fit elsewhere.

But putting it in git-count-objects seems like a bit more of a stretch
given the above.

I dunno. It seems like less of a stretch to me, but it is true that
rev-parse is already a kitchen sink repository. I can live with it
either way.

-Peff