> On 10 Aug 2016, at 19:17, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote: > > Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:36:45PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: >> >>>> So now we have packet_write() and packet_write_gently(), but they differ >>>> in more than just whether they are gentle. That seems like a weird >>>> interface. >>>> >>>> Should we either be picking a new name (e.g., packet_write_mem() or >>>> something), or migrating packet_write() to packet_write_fmt()? >>> >>> Done in "[PATCH v5 08/15] pkt-line: rename packet_write() to >>> packet_write_fmt()" >> >> Ah, OK. Generally I'd suggest to reorder things so that each patch looks >> like a step forward (and so the early patches become preparatory steps, >> and the justification in them is something like "we're going to add more >> write functions, so let's give this a more descriptive name"). > > I am guilty for saying "packet_write() should have been similar to > write(2)". We may want to have a time-period during which there is > no "packet_write()" in the codebase, before we get to that stage. > I.e. rename it to packet_write_fmt() to vacate the name and add > packet_write_mem(), and then later rename packet_write_mem() to its > final name packet_write(), or something like that. The two-step > process would reduce the chance of misconversion.
OK. Does this mean I can leave the "packet_write()" to "packet_write_fmt()" rename as is in this series? Thanks, Lars -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
