Re: [PATCH v4 2/2] Rename suffixcmp() to ends_with() and invert its result

>
> Antoine Pelisse <apelisse@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> I'm not exactly sure I understand the point of not squashing all those
>> patches together ?
>> It's not like one is going without the others, or that the commit
>> message provides some new information (except for the name of the
>> file, but that is not very relevant either). The downside is that it's
>> _many_ messages to bypass when reading mails from small-screen devices
>> :-)
> 
> The only plausible reason I could think of is to avoid clashing with
> topics in-flight, but then the approach to produce per-file patch is
> not perfect for that purpose, either, when more than one topic in
> flight touch the same file at different places.
> 
> I'd say probably the best organization would be something like:
> 
>  * A set of clean-up patches to normalize oddball usages of existing
>    functions (e.g. normalize 'prefixcmp(a,b) != 0' in some file(s)
>    to 'prefixcmp(a,b)');
> 
>  * A single patch to introduce the new function(s), to be applied on
>    top of 1.8.5;
> 
>  * A large patch to convert all uses of prefixcmp to starts_with and
>    suffixcmp to ends_with in the 1.8.5 codebase;
> 
>  * A patch for each topic in flight to convert newly introduced
>    prefixcmp/suffixcmp to starts_with/ends_with, to be applied after
>    the topic graduates to 'master' after 1.8.5; and then finally
> 
>  * A separate patch to remove prefixcmp and suffixcmp, to be applied
>    after _all_ in-flight topic has graduated to 'master'.