Re: [PATCH 16/27] sha1_file: add repository argument to sha1_file_name

2018-02-23 Thread Brandon Williams 
On 02/23, Stefan Beller wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Brandon Williams  wrote:
> > On 02/20, Stefan Beller wrote:
> >> Add a repository argument to allow sha1_file_name callers to be more
> >> specific about which repository to handle. This is a small mechanical
> >> change; it doesn't change the implementation to handle repositories
> >> other than the_repository yet.
> >>
> >> As with the previous commits, use a macro to catch callers passing a
> >> repository other than the_repository at compile time.
> >>
> >> While at it, move the declaration to object-store.h, where it should
> >> be easier to find.
> >
> > Seems like we may want to make a sha1-file.h or an oid-file.h or
> > something like that at some point as that seems like a better place for
> > the function than in the object-store.h file?
> 
> It depends what our long term goal is.
> Do we want header and source file name to match for each function?
> Or do we want a coarser set of headers, such that we have a broad
> object-store.h, but that is implemented in sha1_file.c, packfile.c
> for the parts of the raw_objectstore and other .c files for the higher
> levels of the object store?
> 
> For now I'd just keep it in object-store.h as moving out just a couple
> functions seems less consistent?

Fair enough :)

-- 
Brandon Williams

Re: [PATCH 16/27] sha1_file: add repository argument to sha1_file_name

2018-02-23 Thread Stefan Beller 
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Brandon Williams  wrote:
> On 02/20, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> Add a repository argument to allow sha1_file_name callers to be more
>> specific about which repository to handle. This is a small mechanical
>> change; it doesn't change the implementation to handle repositories
>> other than the_repository yet.
>>
>> As with the previous commits, use a macro to catch callers passing a
>> repository other than the_repository at compile time.
>>
>> While at it, move the declaration to object-store.h, where it should
>> be easier to find.
>
> Seems like we may want to make a sha1-file.h or an oid-file.h or
> something like that at some point as that seems like a better place for
> the function than in the object-store.h file?

It depends what our long term goal is.
Do we want header and source file name to match for each function?
Or do we want a coarser set of headers, such that we have a broad
object-store.h, but that is implemented in sha1_file.c, packfile.c
for the parts of the raw_objectstore and other .c files for the higher
levels of the object store?

For now I'd just keep it in object-store.h as moving out just a couple
functions seems less consistent?

Stefan

Re: [PATCH 16/27] sha1_file: add repository argument to sha1_file_name

2018-02-21 Thread Brandon Williams 
On 02/20, Stefan Beller wrote:
> Add a repository argument to allow sha1_file_name callers to be more
> specific about which repository to handle. This is a small mechanical
> change; it doesn't change the implementation to handle repositories
> other than the_repository yet.
> 
> As with the previous commits, use a macro to catch callers passing a
> repository other than the_repository at compile time.
> 
> While at it, move the declaration to object-store.h, where it should
> be easier to find.

Seems like we may want to make a sha1-file.h or an oid-file.h or
something like that at some point as that seems like a better place for
the function than in the object-store.h file?


-- 
Brandon Williams