From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/17] Name local variables more consistently Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:25:02 -0400 Message-ID: <20120827092502.GA2428@sigill.intra.peff.net> References: <1345709442-16046-1-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu> <1345709442-16046-5-git-send-email-mhagger@alum.mit.edu> <20120823083918.GB6963@sigill.intra.peff.net> <7vvcg5v9hh.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <503B3C5C.1020109@alum.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Haggerty X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Aug 27 11:25:20 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1T5vZN-0000Vl-Jj for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:25:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753240Ab2H0JZI (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:25:08 -0400 Received: from 75-15-5-89.uvs.iplsin.sbcglobal.net ([75.15.5.89]:39552 "EHLO peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752897Ab2H0JZH (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:25:07 -0400 Received: (qmail 11415 invoked by uid 107); 27 Aug 2012 09:25:22 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) (smtp-auth username relayok, mechanism cram-md5) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with ESMTPA; Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:25:22 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 27 Aug 2012 05:25:02 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <503B3C5C.1020109@alum.mit.edu> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 11:22:36AM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote: > > Using one name is better, but I wonder "heads" is the better one > > between the two. > > > > After all, this codepath is not limited to branches these days as > > the word "head" implies. Rather, has what we > > asked for, and has what the other sides have, and we are > > trying to make sure we haven't asked what they do not have in this > > function. > > > > And the way we do so is to match the "thing"s with what are in > > "refs" to find unmatched ones. > > > > So between the two, I would have chosen "match" instead of "heads" > > to call the "thing". > > When I decided between "heads" and "match", my main consideration was > that "match" sounds like something that has already been matched, not > something that is being matched against. The word "match" also implies > to me that some nontrivial matching process is going on, like glob > expansion. > > But I agree with you that "heads" also has disadvantages. > > What about a third option: "refnames"? This name makes it clear that we > are talking about simple names as opposed to "struct ref" or some kind > of refname glob patterns and also makes it clear that they are not > necessarily all branches. It would also be distinct from the "refs" > linked list that is often used in the same functions. Yeah, I agree that "refnames" would be better. I think something like "spec" or "refspec" would indicate better that they are to be matched against, but then you run afoul of confusing that with colon-delimited refspecs (which I do not think fetch-pack understands at all). -Peff