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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: May 16, 2024, 18:24 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqa5kpr4wr.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <3cc2b4e5501ebe1464a6d75b7aea9f2ad6030c4a.1715836916.git.ps@pks.im>

Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

> 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.