RE: [PATCH v1 2/3] sub-process: refactor the filter process code into a reusable module

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
> 
> 
> To avoid confusion (although readers may not require), even though I
> explained "boring mechanical part" first and "refactoring", that was purely
> for explanation.
> 
> In practice, I would expect that it would be easier to both do and review if
> refactoring is done with the original name.
> 
> A function that will keep its name in the final result (e.g.
> start_multi_file_filter()) will call a new and more generic helper function.  The
> new helper may start using the new name from the get-go (e.g.
> subprocess_start()), but the data types it shares with the original part of the
> code (e.g. 'struct cmd2process') may still be using the original name.
> 
> And after completing "2 or more" refactoring would be a good place to do
> the remaining "boring mechanical rename".  IOW, the count above could be
> 
>      2 or more (refactoring) +
>      1 (boring mechanical part) +
>      1 (final movement)
> 
> and I didn't mean to say that you need to rename first.  What we want is "if
> you need to have a single large patch that cannot be split, see if you can
> make it purely mechanical.", as a single large patch that is _not_ mechanical
> conversion is the worst kind of patch for reviewers.