From: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2017 17:16:46 GMT
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/10] pack: move pack name-related functions
Message-ID: <20170809101646.4bc67606@twelve2.svl.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP8UFD20_Q7djbJfMmrGEnN3j2NasHyvuNAfZHMr_bNRjO0qpw@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:00:40 +0200
Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:36:24 -0700
> > Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> There are also packed refs, so one could (like I did) think that
> >> pack.c is for generic packing of things, maybe packfile.c
> >> would be more clear?
> >
> > Good point. I'll use packfile.c and packfile.h in the next version.
> 
> It looks like you used "packfile.c" and "pack.h" in v2. Is there a
> reason why it's not using "packfile.h"?

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.