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: Wed, 20 May 2015 22:04:03 -0400 Message-ID: <20150521020402.GA11619@peff.net> References: <1431845814-2541-1-git-send-email-ps@pks.im> <20150519222427.GA994@peff.net> <20150520194906.GA8421@peff.net> 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 Thu May 21 04:04:19 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 1YvFqL-00063T-CM for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 21 May 2015 04:04:17 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754864AbbEUCEH (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 May 2015 22:04:07 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:33606 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1753452AbbEUCEG (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 May 2015 22:04:06 -0400 Received: (qmail 21502 invoked by uid 102); 21 May 2015 02:04:06 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 20 May 2015 21:04:06 -0500 Received: (qmail 30222 invoked by uid 107); 21 May 2015 02:04:07 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Wed, 20 May 2015 22:04:07 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 20 May 2015 22:04:03 -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 Wed, May 20, 2015 at 03:37:23PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > In any case, even though I merged these three to 'next', I think we > need to either revert 3/3 or do s/pack-file/packfile/ throughout the > pack-protocol documentation. The original has something like this: > > The pack-file MUST NOT be sent if the only command used is 'delete'. > > A pack-file MUST be sent if either create or update command is used, > even if the server already has all the necessary objects. In this > case the client MUST send an empty pack-file. The only time this > is likely to happen is if the client is creating > a new branch or a tag that points to an existing obj-id. > > and these are explicitly referring to what EBNF defines as "pack-file". > Changing them to "packfile" is simply wrong. Yeah, I agree they should agree with the EBNF. And my inclination is for "packfile", as it is refering to the concept of the on-the-wire packfile data (there is no "file ending in .pack" in this context). Which I guess argues for a further patch. -Peff