Re: [PATCH 00/20] Separate `ref_cache` into a separate module

> Michael Haggerty <mhagger@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> 
>> Michael Haggerty (20):
>>   get_ref_dir(): don't call read_loose_refs() for "refs/bisect"
>>   refs_read_raw_ref(): new function
>>   refs_ref_iterator_begin(): new function
>>   refs_verify_refname_available(): implement once for all backends
>>   refs_verify_refname_available(): use function in more places
>>   Rename `add_ref()` to `add_ref_entry()`
>>   Rename `find_ref()` to `find_ref_entry()`
>>   Rename `remove_entry()` to `remove_entry_from_dir()`
>>   refs: split `ref_cache` code into separate files
>>   ref-cache: introduce a new type, ref_cache
>>   refs: record the ref_store in ref_cache, not ref_dir
>>   ref-cache: use a callback function to fill the cache
>>   refs: handle "refs/bisect/" in `loose_fill_ref_dir()`
>>   do_for_each_entry_in_dir(): eliminate `offset` argument
>>   get_loose_ref_dir(): function renamed from get_loose_refs()
>>   get_loose_ref_cache(): new function
>>   cache_ref_iterator_begin(): make function smarter
>>   commit_packed_refs(): use reference iteration
>>   files_pack_refs(): use reference iteration
>>   do_for_each_entry_in_dir(): delete function
> 
> These mostly seem to be ref-cache but there is one mention of "refs
> cache", and also the topic cover says ref_cache.  Which one is the
> canonical one?  I'd assume it is "ref-cache" (or "ref cache").
> 
> The reason I am asking is because I wanted to give the three
> "Rename" ones an "<area>:" prefix, and then noticed that the
> shortlog output looked somewhat incoherent.