Re: [PATCH v2] docs: explain the order of output in the batched mode of git-cat-file(1)

* "as they have been read from stdin"; drop "from stdin" here, as
  we already know we are talking about the mode that reads object
  names from the standard input and there is no need to repeat it.

it is needed to explain that git will not do any optimization to the
order of paths
before printing the output. I entered a discussion with someone who was worried
that git may optimize the paths order because it is not stated clearly
that output follows
the same order as input.

* "considered as an object" -> "considered to be an object name" or
  "used as an object name" [*].  This primarily comes from my
  spinal reflex against "consider as", plus my desire to be more
  precise in terminology.

this is not related to my changes, I just moved this line but didn't change it.


Thanks,
ahmed akef


Thanks,
ahmed akef


On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 9:20 AM Ahmed Akef [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

* "as they have been read from stdin"; drop "from stdin" here, as
  we already know we are talking about the mode that reads object
  names from the standard input and there is no need to repeat it.

it is needed to explain that git will not do any optimization to the order of paths
before printing the output. I entered a discussion with someone who was worried
that git may optimize the paths order because it is not stated clearly that output follows
the same order as input.

quoted

* "considered as an object" -> "considered to be an object name" or
  "used as an object name" [*].  This primarily comes from my
  spinal reflex against "consider as", plus my desire to be more
  precise in terminology.

this is not related to my changes, I just moved this line but didn't changed it.

Thanks,
ahmed akef


On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 9:18 AM Ahmed Akef [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

* "as they have been read from stdin"; drop "from stdin" here, as
  we already know we are talking about the mode that reads object
  names from the standard input and there is no need to repeat it.

it is needed to explain that git will not do any optimization to the order of paths
before printing the output. I entered a discussion with someone who was worried
that git may optimize the paths order because it is not stated clearly that output follows
the same order as input.

quoted

* "considered as an object" -> "considered to be an object name" or
  "used as an object name" [*].  This primarily comes from my
  spinal reflex against "consider as", plus my desire to be more
  precise in terminology.

this is not related to my changes, I just moved this line but didn't changed it.

Thanks,
ahmed akef


On Wed, Aug 21, 2024 at 7:19 PM Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

"ahmed akef via GitGitGadget" [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

 If `--batch` or `--batch-check` is given, `cat-file` will read objects
-from stdin, one per line, and print information about them. By default,
-the whole line is considered as an object, as if it were fed to
-linkgit:git-rev-parse[1].
+from stdin, one per line, and print information about them in the same
+order as they have been read from stdin. By default, the whole line is
+considered as an object, as if it were fed to linkgit:git-rev-parse[1].

A few "Huh?" I had while reading the above.

 * "as they have been read from stdin"; drop "from stdin" here, as
   we already know we are talking about the mode that reads object
   names from the standard input and there is no need to repeat it.

 * "considered as an object" -> "considered to be an object name" or
   "used as an object name" [*].  This primarily comes from my
   spinal reflex against "consider as", plus my desire to be more
   precise in terminology.

Thanks.

Nothing mentioned below should be part of this patch, but as I
noticed it while studying the current documentation to prepare this
review, I'll record them as #leftoverbits.

The description of how lines read from the standard input should
look like needs more work.  Documentation on "--batch" says "the
input lines must specify the path, separated by whitespace", but is
it clear that it expects "<object name>", followed by a whitespace
(not necessarily a single SP), followed by "<path>"?  Without prior
knowledge, I wouldn't be surprised if somebody read the text as
asking for paths separated by whitespace, e.g.

    README.txt COPYING Makefile

that gives three paths.  The text needs to be tightened to say
something like "must give the path after the object name, separated
by whitespace.  The path is used to find the textconv and smudge
filter".

The section also says "See the section BATCH OUTPUT below for
details." but the section it refers to does not talk anything about
this whitespace thing.  It also is unclear what would happen if the
input line says:

    :COPYING Makefile

Would it apply the textconv/filters meant for Makefile to the blob
stored at COPYING in the index?  If we say

    :README.txt

would the command be smart enough to know that the blob came from
the path README.txt and apply the textconv/filters meant for that
path, without the input repeating the same information twice like:

    :README.txt README.txt

or something silly like that?


[Reference]

* https://www.britannica.com/dictionary/eb/qa/consider-and-consider-as