From: Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2016 12:02:47 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/16] init: allow alternate backends to be set for new repos
Message-ID: <568D0267.7080707@alum.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqk2nnkio4.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On 01/05/2016 07:03 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> David Turner <dturner@twopensource.com> writes:
> 
>> I'm working on the rest now, but wanted to comment on this first.  I
>> went ahead and made this change, but I'm not sure I like it.  In the
>> git codebase, the concept will continue to be called "backend"; there
>> are already-accepted patches using that terminology.  Having two
>> separate names for the same thing seems confusing to me.
> 
> We have the option to update whatever "are already-accepted" [*1*].
> That would allow us to uniformly call it "ref storage", if we wanted
> to.

...whereas whatever we name the option, we have to live with forever
because it is user-facing. It's more important to get the option name
correct (though I agree that it would be nice for the nomenclature used
in the code to be reminiscent of the option name).

Michael

-- 
Michael Haggerty
mhagger@alum.mit.edu