Re: [PATCH 2/3] ident: rename commit_rewrite_person() to rewrite_ident_line()

From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 30, 2022, 16:55 UTC
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD0AjU3_6URpVYafYTxYSTPeX2zw-PLwL1b5rTiQY5EvUw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ad7fff11-5ab2-d314-5e12-bdf61b854aa6@gmail.com>

Hi Phillip,

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 5:33 PM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 30/06/2022 15:24, Siddharth Asthana wrote:
> > We will be using commit_rewrite_person() in git-cat-file to rewrite
> > ident line in commit/tag object buffers.

s/line/lines/

Show 15 quoted lines

> > Following are the reason for renaming commit_rewrite_person():
> > - the function can be used not only on a commit buffer, but also on a
> >    tag object buffer, so having "commit" in its name is misleading.
> > - the function works on the ident line in the commit/tag object buffers,
> >    just like "split_ident_line()". Since these functions are related they
> >    should have similar terms for uniformity.
>
> I'm afraid I'm not sure about this change as the interface for
> split_ident_line() and commit_rewrite_person() are not uniform.
> split_ident_line() takes a pointer to the beginning of the name in an
> ident line and a length. commit_rewrite_person() takes the whole commit
> buffer and searches for the ident line based on the argument "what". I
> agree that having commit in the name of the function is confusing when
> it can be used for a tag, but having line in the name when it takes a
> whole buffer is also confusing.

It takes a whole buffer but it rewrites only ident lines, so maybe "rewrite_ident_lines()" (so with "lines" instead of "line").

> Maybe buffer_rewrite_person() or
> something like that would be clearer?

I don't think "person" is better than "ident" for this, and I think it's better to use the same name for it in split_ident_line() and the function we are renaming.

It's true that we are not rewriting the date, so maybe "rewrite_person_in_ident_lines()".

Thanks, Christian.