From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 06:26:43 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/14] refs: improvements and fixes for peeling tags
Message-ID: <20251010062643.GI1965904@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <aOiYFPTNLL1Fgz5V@pks.im>

On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 07:22:28AM +0200, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:

> I think I'd like to avoid doing such a swap in this series, as it may
> easily cause confusion and create problems for any in-flight series.
> From my point of view I also think that neither of these names is
> clearly superior over the other.
> 
> So to move forward, how about we land this as-is and I promise to follow
> up with another series that:
> 
>   - Renames `struct ref` as proposed.
> 
>   - Introduces `struct reference` into more of our APIs?

OK by me. I am also OK if we just leave "struct ref" as-is. I like the
name "ref" more than "reference" (since that is the name we usually use,
and what the API is called!). But changing "struct ref" now may be a lot
of churn. So I will not hold you to your promise. :)

-Peff