Re: [PATCH 1/3] name-hash: refactor polymorphic index_name_exists()

> Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> writes:
>
>> Given the above. How should I proceed? Do you still feel that it is
>> advisable to keep an index_name_exists() around for compatibility
>> reasons in case any new callers are introduced? Regardless of that
>> answer, do you want index_name_exists() renamed to
>> index_file_exists()?
>
> Renaming *_name_exists() to *_file_exists() without keeping a
> compatibility one will force new topics to be rebased on this
> series.  Alternatively we could merge them to 'pu' (and later 'next'
> and 'master') with evil merges to adjust the change in the semantics
> of the called function.  That increases the risk of accidental
> breakages, I think.
>
> It is safer to keep index_name_exists() around with the older
> semantics, if we can, and rename your "file only" one to a different
> name.  That way, even if a new topic still uses index_name_exists()
> expecting the traditional behaviour, it will not break immediately
> and we do not need to risk evil merges making mistakes.
>
> Later, we can "git grep _name_exists" to spot them and convert such
> old-style calls to either "directory only" or "file only" variants
> after this series and these follow-on topics hit 'master' (and we do
> not know at this point in what order that happens).