From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:29:31 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 05/10] pkt-line: rename s/packet_read_line/packet_read/
Message-ID: <20130218102931.GP5096@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20130218101915.GE7049@elie.Belkin>

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 02:19:15AM -0800, Jonathan Nieder wrote:

> Jeff King wrote:
> 
> > Originally packets were used just for the line-oriented ref
> > advertisement and negotiation. These days, we also stuff
> > packfiles and sidebands into them, and they do not
> > necessarily represent a line. Drop the "_line" suffix, as it
> > is not informative and makes the function names quite long
> > (especially as we add "_gently" and other variants).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
> > ---
> > Again, this is a taste issue. Can be optional.
> 
> In combination with patch 3, this changes the meaning of packet_read()
> without changing its signature, which could make other patches
> cherry-picked on top change behavior in unpredictable ways. :(
> 
> So I'd be all for this if the signature changes (for example to put
> the fd at the end or something), but not so if not.

True. Though packet_read has only existed since last June, only had one
callsite (which would now conflict, since I'm touching it in this
series), and has no new calls in origin..origin/pu. So it's relatively
low risk for such a problem. I don't know how careful we want to be.

-Peff