Re: [PATCH 05/15] ref-filter: abstract ref format into its own struct

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  builtin/branch.c       | 14 +++++++-------
>>>>  builtin/for-each-ref.c | 22 ++++++++++++----------
>>>>  builtin/tag.c          | 30 ++++++++++++++++--------------
>>>>  builtin/verify-tag.c   | 12 ++++++------
>>>>  ref-filter.c           | 22 ++++++++++++----------
>>>>  ref-filter.h           | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
>>>>  6 files changed, 70 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> The patch looks good to me. So some off-topic comments:
>>> I reviewed this patch from bottom up, i.e. I started looking at
>>> ref-filter.h, then  ref-filter.c and then the rest. If only you had formatted
>>> the patches with an orderfile. ;)
>>
>> As a reviewer, for this particular patchq, I actually appreciated
>> that ref-filter.[ch] came at the end.  That forced me to think.
>> ...
>> I do want to present from Doc to header to code when I am showing my
>> patch to others, so this is probably a good example that illustrates
>> that the preferred presentation order is not just personal
>> preference, but is different on occasion even for the same person.
>
> So when somebody wants to do a "from design and explanation to
> provider to consumer", we would probably want "doc, *.h, *.c at the
> top-level and then things inside builtin/ subdirectory" order.  Of
> course, on the other hand, "I do not trust me not getting swayed by
> the fact that a developer more competent than me wrote the patch"
> reviewer would want to use the reverse order.