Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Michael Haggerty <mhag...@alum.mit.edu> > wrote: >> In particular, make it clear that they make copies of the sha1 >> arguments. > > A couple weeks ago we had plans on getting rid of SHA1 in > "the near future" IIRC. Would it make sense to not go down > the SHA1 road further and document this in a more abstract way? > > s/SHA1/object name/ > > essentially, but I guess one of Brians future series' may pick this > up as well. > > I am just hesitant to introduce more sha1-ism at this point.
Don't worry too much about it. These new paragraphs explain existing new_sha1 and old_sha1 parameters, and when they are updated to new_oid/old_oid, the comment will get updated at the same time to match.
