From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] pkt-line: support tracing verbatim pack contents Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:43:11 -0400 Message-ID: <20150616164310.GA18667@peff.net> References: <20150612212526.GA25447@peff.net> <20150612212827.GC25757@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Augie Fackler , Johannes Sixt , git@vger.kernel.org, Stefan Beller To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jun 16 18:43:21 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 1Z4txJ-0002Fj-6O for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 18:43:21 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756412AbbFPQnQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:43:16 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:46851 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1754953AbbFPQnN (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:43:13 -0400 Received: (qmail 12979 invoked by uid 102); 16 Jun 2015 16:43:13 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 16 Jun 2015 11:43:13 -0500 Received: (qmail 16461 invoked by uid 107); 16 Jun 2015 16:43:19 -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, 16 Jun 2015 12:43:19 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:43:11 -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, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:39:19AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > As to the documentation, I have a feeling that, unless the reader > and/or the user intimately knows that TRACE_PACK is implemented by > hooking into the same mechanism that TRACE_PACKET needs to, s/he > would not even wonder if TRACE_PACKET needs to be enabled when > asking for TRACE_PACK. Yes, one is a proper substring of the other, > but the similarity between the two stops there. While I do not > think it would hurt very much to mention that they are independent, > I have a slight suspicion that it might make it more likely to get > user confused. Yes, I was just re-reading the documentation based on Augie's comment, and it seems pretty clear to me. Of course I wrote it, so that is not saying much. Augie, I'd be happy to hear a proposed wording change if you have one. I do kind of hate the name TRACE_PACK for two reasons: - it _is_ so close to TRACE_PACKET; maybe TRACE_PACKFILE would be better - it does not indicate that it is about on-the-wire packs. I.e., it has nothing to do with "git repack". But I could not think of a good succinct name to indicate that. -Peff