From: Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2025 22:52:26 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/49] repack: introduce new compilation unit
Message-ID: <aOmOKso3os5fP6cf@nand.local>
In-Reply-To: <20251010054804.GD1965904@coredump.intra.peff.net>

On Fri, Oct 10, 2025 at 01:48:04AM -0400, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2025 at 06:07:53PM -0400, Taylor Blau wrote:
>
> > Let's start by migrating 'struct pack_objects_args' (and the related
> > corresponding pack_objects_args_release() function) into repack.h, and
> > teach both the Makefile and Meson how to build the new compilation unit.
>
> This name is a little generic for something that now has external scope,
> since it is specific to repack's view of what it might want to pass to
> pack_objects (and not something that builtin/pack-objects.c cares about
> itself).
>
> I don't have a great alternative name, though. I guess it could be
> repack_pack_objects_args or something, though that is getting to be a
> mouthful.

Yeah, I had considered `repack_pack_objects_args` initially for exactly
that reason, but discarded it because I thought it was too wordy.

> I dunno. Maybe it is OK as-is. If I stretch I can imagine a world where
> pack_objects_args is for the lib-ified version of cmd_pack_objects() to
> use (like we have send_pack_args, etc). But TBH I find it unlikely that
> we'd go that way anytime soon (and if we did, we'd maybe even be able to
> refactor repack to more directly use the struct offered by
> pack-objects).

I had a similar concern when writing this patch. I think that that world
is far enough away that I am comfortable crossing that bridge if/when we
get there ;-).

Thanks,
Taylor