From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 581D920899 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 19:38:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753638AbdHKTig (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:38:36 -0400 Received: from mail-qk0-f195.google.com ([209.85.220.195]:38406 "EHLO mail-qk0-f195.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753517AbdHKTif (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:38:35 -0400 Received: by mail-qk0-f195.google.com with SMTP id m84so4424163qki.5 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:38:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=WlPYXf8M1rcsde0vcH3N6poGtqE/pjxeoF15g9G0GFc=; b=DXt/BuA/96IJpfynvO5SR+V1XqFE9In+e73JtsjwADaAHgoj4/0hRulDmg+56ezmMm Pmt6WYKnQ4/W0HPVSJ0Kg2/OWuYra4RyiZ4Rz0OJOoL+U/p8GdYPASbAKedJ6xv5PM+e bdBW5aFjyzyABjYyTbADqflvHNpNMpUYDCyViZ4pomkLsQk6ck/sing0S6bisQ6cW4Ib 9kXcyDv8NaeBkFeYNJQkc5dQLKaM7iAv9ZSqxiuGjFGR2QZmAF6mQxclDnqoL4KQIN+E SdKn1lVKIU11x6xqoKaYMFukMbLFIeHMDJ+Gm/JgBvu5HEEiR9H18Z0ZZEzHgeIhXGp/ aV9A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WlPYXf8M1rcsde0vcH3N6poGtqE/pjxeoF15g9G0GFc=; b=lO0+dxI4EoM9Zk97C0jAEsngfSX2H4jH9ZL4jDkdsANbOzj2LmoG4nPRrThy6/rhY3 HFjitiNzPIo7BZuPnVrdFO+y9+ZoKN9sGkSVUNFEiXpnMYmZE540QC3qr4lyYp56YIy3 I5/m5Rx3/JSMUeoJ9CZh/XqxZSCYiBDzBByDW6ZyIMpYg1IhTMa/iornX8V9m552E9hF i2RDLi0bFsZ0aOKKm9nzsJS0GkYPVt6w4oenHQGlnsL/aQXPsPY8+nuQ8OuX7pzmLpEA DdmA1MI+otaYc+a+MmFs8K1Ylpp4kRlSwc114bYo7s9w0sbtfEePiZLqedS/nH7EkFX/ 9Dzw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHYfb5gKlAtbT9JEWHIQQnZBp1XCQvDsF6F5nqE3ESwoIcjECkznwucC baTIPad4Z+P7N0+uzdE= X-Received: by 10.55.42.216 with SMTP id q85mr20322716qkq.202.1502480314216; Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:38:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.13] ([65.222.173.206]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z30sm1063610qta.84.2017.08.11.12.38.32 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/10] pack: move pack name-related functions To: Jonathan Tan , Christian Couder Cc: Stefan Beller , "git@vger.kernel.org" References: <368a1095557aa5f68cebd4d4e08628351c03b843.1502220307.git.jonathantanmy@google.com> <20170808135001.48f2440e@twelve2.svl.corp.google.com> <20170809101646.4bc67606@twelve2.svl.corp.google.com> From: Ben Peart Message-ID: Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2017 15:38:31 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170809101646.4bc67606@twelve2.svl.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On 8/9/2017 1:16 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: > On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:00:40 +0200 > Christian Couder wrote: > >> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: >>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:36:24 -0700 >>> Stefan Beller wrote: >>>> >>>> There are also packed refs, so one could (like I did) think that >>>> pack.c is for generic packing of things, maybe packfile.c >>>> would be more clear? >>> >>> Good point. I'll use packfile.c and packfile.h in the next version. >> >> It looks like you used "packfile.c" and "pack.h" in v2. Is there a >> reason why it's not using "packfile.h"? > > Ah, I forgot to mention this in the cover letter. I thought that one > header was sufficient to cover all pack-related things, so if we wanted > to know which files used pack-related things, we would only need to > search for one string instead of two. Also, the division between > "pack.h" and the hypothetical "packfile.h" was not so clear to me. > I prefer having source and the header files that export the functions have matching names to make it easy to find them. I would prefer packfile.h vs pack.h myself.