Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] receive-pack: move message generation to separate function

>> either `report()` or `report_v2()` to report to the client which of the
>> references we have updated successfully and which updates have failed.
>> The only difference between those two functions is that the latter also
>> knows to provide a more detailed report about how exactly a given
>> reference was updated.
>
> I am torn between praising "bool detailed_report" and frowning on
> it.  As the above describes, the difference in behaviour between
> report() and report_v2() is if they emit details of per-command
> update status, so in that sense, the word "detail" in the name of
> the parameter that controls how much details the shared helper
> function gives sounds very much appropriate.  On the other hand, the
> difference in purpose in these two functions is which version of the
> receive-pack protocol they speak, and "This parameter controls how
> much detail the report contains" may tempt careless developers into
> adding random new pieces of information and break existing clients.
> It may be more honest to give it a name that hints that it is about
> the protocol version.
>
> Using
>
>     enum report_version {
> 	receive_pack_report_v0,
> 	receive_pack_report_v2,
>     };
>
> might allow future extension, but it may be overkill.  I dunno.