From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] git-verify-pack.txt: fix inconsistent spelling of "packfile" Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 18:24:28 -0400 Message-ID: <20150519222427.GA994@peff.net> References: <1431845814-2541-1-git-send-email-ps@pks.im> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Patrick Steinhardt To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed May 20 00:24:36 2015 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 1YupwB-0005kG-Rv for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 20 May 2015 00:24:36 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751295AbbESWYb (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2015 18:24:31 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:32891 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1751268AbbESWYb (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 May 2015 18:24:31 -0400 Received: (qmail 19911 invoked by uid 102); 19 May 2015 22:24:30 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 19 May 2015 17:24:30 -0500 Received: (qmail 18208 invoked by uid 107); 19 May 2015 22:24:32 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 19 May 2015 18:24:31 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 19 May 2015 18:24:28 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:34:03PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > A quick "git grep packfile" vs "git grep pack-file" inside > Documentation/ directory indicates that we seem to use 'packfile' > primarily in the lower-level technical documents that are not > end-user facing. Almost half of them are in the release notes > that we won't bother "fixing", so it might make sense to go the > other way around, consistently using "pack-file" that may be more > familiar to end-users. > > What do others think? If I saw "pack-file" (outside of this discussion) I would think it was wrong. That's just my opinion, of course. Searching for "packfile" on the list yields 2145 messages. Searching for "pack-file" yields 764. Searching for "pack file" yields 2007 (maybe more, as my grep did not take into account line breaks). -Peff