Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
> FWIW, I cannot see us ever adding TREE (or Tree) as a separate type.
> It's too confusing for no gain. We'd call it "tree2" or something more
> obvious.
In case it was not clear, I didn't mean to say I _want_ to leave
that door open. Well, I cannot imagine it was unclear, as I said I
do not at all mind declaring that all object names will be lowercase
to allow us freely downcase what we got at the UI level.
> So I don't mind closing that door, but I'm not sure if a partial
> conversion (where some commands are case-insensitive but others aren't
> yet) might not leave us in a more confusing place.
Exactly.
> I dunno. I guess I have never wanted to type "^{Tree}" in the first
> place, so I do not personally see the _benefit_. Which makes it easy to
> see even small negatives as a net loss.
As to the potential _benefit_, I do not see much either myself, but
we already are seeing somebody cared enough to throw us a patch, so
to some people there are clearly perceived benefit. I do not think
closing the door for typenames that are not lowercase is a negative
change at all.
I just wanted the patch to make it clear that it is making such a
system-wide design decision and casting it in stone. Which includes
that "cat-file <type>" and "hash-object -t <type>" get the same
case-insensitivity update and probably writing that design decision
down somewhere in the documentation, perhaps in the glossary where
we talk about the "object type".
