Re: [PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Mar 26, 2014, 21:34 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqq1txoiqzj.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140326195201.GB16002@mini.zxlink>

Kirill Smelkov <kirr@navytux.spb.ru> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:46:32AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Kirill Smelkov <kirr@navytux.spb.ru> writes:
>> 
>> > What are the downsides of "__" prefix by the way?
>> 
>> Aren't these names reserved for compiler/runtime implementations?
>
> Yes, but there are precedents when people don't obey it widely and
> in practice everything works :)

I think you are alluding to the practice in the Linux kernel, but their requirement is vastly different---their product do not even link with libc and they always compile with specific selected versions of gcc, no?

> Let it be something portable anyway -
> how about diff_tree_sha1_low() ?

Sure.

As this is a file-scope static, I do not think the exact naming matters that much. Just FYI, we seem to use ll_ prefix (standing for low-level) in some places.

Thanks.