From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 05:05:35 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH] Per-path attribute based hunk header selection. Message-ID: <7vd4z2xj34.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> In-Reply-To: Nicolas Pitre writes: > On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> About the comment from Johannes regarding hunk_header vs >> funcname, I would actually prefer hunk_header, since that is >> what this is about ("funcname" and "find_func" were misnomer >> from the beginning), but I'd rename hunk_header to funcname for >> the sake of consistency and minimizing the diff. > > I think "minimizing the diff" in this case is a bad reason. Using > hunk_header is so much better than funcname IMHO. Well, even then it turns out to be a good reason, as the patch to rename function and field can be a separate patch. After adding that "latex pattern" stuff, I am even more inclined to rename them.