From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] rename dirlink to gitlink. Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 16:32:51 -0700 Message-ID: <7vodkdbvmk.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20070521200828.GC5412@admingilde.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: "Martin Waitz" , "Junio C Hamano" , git@vger.kernel.org To: "Torgil Svensson" X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 22 01:33:02 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HqHN6-0004fW-Dh for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 22 May 2007 01:33:00 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756906AbXEUXcy (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 May 2007 19:32:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756925AbXEUXcx (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 May 2007 19:32:53 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao104.cox.net ([68.230.241.42]:59502 "EHLO fed1rmmtao104.cox.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756906AbXEUXcx (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 May 2007 19:32:53 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.05.02.00 201-2174-114-20060621) with ESMTP id <20070521233252.RFU15717.fed1rmmtao104.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Mon, 21 May 2007 19:32:52 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id 1zYr1X00L1kojtg0000000; Mon, 21 May 2007 19:32:52 -0400 In-Reply-To: (Torgil Svensson's message of "Tue, 22 May 2007 01:12:02 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: "Torgil Svensson" writes: > On 5/21/07, Martin Waitz wrote: >> Unify naming of plumbing dirlink/gitlink concept: >> >> perl -pi -e 's/dirlink/gitlink/g' -e 's/DIRLNK/GITLINK/g' >> --- > > Does this mean that the link doesn't necessarily has to be represented > as a directory (even though current code does it) ? I do not think the patch has that much deep meaning. Personally I think the patch is similar to renaming "cache" used in the code to "index" --- needless code shuffling that does not buy you anything. As an internal symbol, S_IFDIRLNK makes _much_ more sense than S_IFGITLINK, exactly because it is a mixture of S_IFDIR and S_IFLNK. The only excuse that we _might_ want to consider the patch is that S_IFDIRLNK has not lived that long, compared to the use of word "cache" in our codebase. It's only two weeks old -- so if we were to apply this patch, we would need to do that right away, or it will be never. But I am not _so_ enthused about the renaming in the code.