Re: [PATCH 02/16] refs: rename `init_db` callback to avoid confusion

> Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> 
> > Reference backends have two callbacks `init` and `init_db`. The
> > similarity of these two callbacks has repeatedly tripped myself whenever
> > I was looking at those, where I always had to look up which of them does
> > what.
> >
> > Rename the `init_db` callback to `create`, which should hopefully be
> > clearer.
> 
> Hmph, create() may be clearer than init_db(), but then I am not sure
> what init() would do, differently from create(), so this rename
> takes me back to the puzzled square one state X-<.
> 
> I am guessing that create is about creating on-disk structure, while
> init is about in-core structure out of an existing on-disk
> structure?  Once I understand the differences in these two things,
> it is much less troublesome to tell them apart, regardless of what
> they are called.  Between .init and .init_db, it would be obvious
> that the latter is about on-disk thing, without a rename done by
> this step.  On the other hand, contrast between <create, init> is
> just as opaque as <init_db, init>---the names do not tell readers
> that these two are about on-disk and in-core structures.
> 
> Just my confused impression.