From: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 19:33:28 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] Integrate hash algorithm support with repo setup
Message-ID: <20171029193327.uqkj6w3ypfwqwm7b@genre.crustytoothpaste.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cRtexDJYMCUR1rGZjJOBRuDbhxP==US2VdNPhSWzeL6LA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 03:02:20PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 1:57 PM, brian m. carlson
> <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net> wrote:
> > I can do CURRENT_HASH_ALGO or CURRENT_HASH instead if you think that's
> > an improvement.  I originally omitted the "algo" portion to keep it
> > short.
> 
> I don't have strong feelings about it aside from worrying about a
> "current_hash" name clash or a reader misunderstanding what it
> represents.
> 
> Does "current" need to be in the name? What about HASH_ALGO or REPO_HASH_ALGO?
> 
> > Alternatively, we could have a current_hash() (or current_hash_algo())
> > inline function if people like that better.
> 
> hash_algo() or repo_hash_algo()?

Those are also fine, and shorter to boot.  I'll wait to see if anyone
has strong opinions on the direction we should go before making a
change.
-- 
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204