Re: [PATCH 3/3] pkt-line: support tracing verbatim pack contents
- From
- Augie Fackler <augie@google.com>
- Date
- Jun 16, 2015, 16:52 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAHcr6HbKfE=B502t9hJt601-mco+PK9s4uViFW3AkHABubiF0w@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20150616164310.GA18667@peff.net>
On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
Show 16 quoted lines
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:39:19AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> As to the documentation, I have a feeling that, unless the reader >> and/or the user intimately knows that TRACE_PACK is implemented by >> hooking into the same mechanism that TRACE_PACKET needs to, s/he >> would not even wonder if TRACE_PACKET needs to be enabled when >> asking for TRACE_PACK. Yes, one is a proper substring of the other, >> but the similarity between the two stops there. While I do not >> think it would hurt very much to mention that they are independent, >> I have a slight suspicion that it might make it more likely to get >> user confused. > > Yes, I was just re-reading the documentation based on Augie's comment, > and it seems pretty clear to me. Of course I wrote it, so that is not > saying much. Augie, I'd be happy to hear a proposed wording change if > you have one.
Yeah, I don't have one - I may have been making assumptions because I knew something of the background on your implementation. i'd say let it live and if people provide feedback later figure out a reword (writing for humans is not a strong suit of mine, alas.)
Show 5 quoted lines
> > I do kind of hate the name TRACE_PACK for two reasons: > > - it _is_ so close to TRACE_PACKET; maybe TRACE_PACKFILE would be > better
+1 on TRACE_PACKFILE - also makes it harder to accidentally leave off the ET and get binary spew when one didn't expect that.
AF