Jeremiah Mahler wrote:
> This is a case where cache_name_compare() was used even though it had
> nothing to do with a cache. The new name makes it clear that no cache
> is involved.
That's a perfect sort of thing to put in the commit message. ;-)
Unlike patches 2 and 3, this could make sense to me as a separate
patch from 1/5. Except... how does git work at all with patch 1 and
without this patch? I thought that patch removed the public
cache_name_compare function.
Would it make sense to delay the removal of cache_name_compare until a
patch at the end of the series?
The patch is small enough that squashing into patch 1 seems fine, too.
[...]
> Rename the call to cache_name_compare() to name_compare().
It's not actually renaming but calling a different function, right?
So I'd say something like
read_directory: use name_compare instead of cache_name_compare
This is a case where cache_name_compare() was used even though it had
nothing to do with a cache. The new name makes it clear that no cache
is involved.
No functional change intended.
Thanks,
Jonathan
--
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
