On Fri, 11 Aug 2017 14:34:27 -0700 Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
> Ben Peart <[email protected]> writes: > > > On 8/9/2017 1:16 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: > > > >> 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. > > Meaning "If we have packfile.c, packfile.h is preferrable over pack.h"? > I tend to agree with that. Fair enough - I've changed it so that the functions now go into packfile.h. I'll send it out once I know what to base it on (at least jt/sha1-file-cleanup, and a few more branches that also modify sha1_file.c).
