Re: [PATCH 00/11] Fix inconsistent ref storage format terminology

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

> Hi,
>
> back when we gained support for reftables we of course introduced the
> ability to control the reference storage format that is used by newly
> created repositories. This infrastructure has grown over time, and
> unfortunately without a lot of consistency:
>
>   - The command line parameter to specify the ref storage format is
>     called "--ref-format=", while the corresponding repository extension
>     is called "refStorage".
>
>   - In most cases we refer to the "ref storage format" in our docs, so
>     calling it "--ref-format=" is inconsistent with them.
>
>   - It is possible to override the ref storage format via an environment
>     variable that is called "GIT_REFERENCE_BACKEND", which is not even
>     remotely consistent with anything else.
>
>   - There is also an "object format", but that format does not control
>     how we store objects but rather whether we use SHA1 or SHA256.
>
> So in summary, it's a huge mess.

Unless you are unifying them all into a single ref-storage-format, I
do not see much practical difference between ref-storage and
ref-format.  They are both with insufficient clarity and details.

ref-format fails to convey "format" of what aspect of ref it is
about (among "storage", "name", and others), ref-storage fails to
convey what aspect of ref storage it is talking about (among
"format", "medium", and others).