Re: [PATCH v5 04/15] pkt-line: add packet_write_gently()

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 10, 2016, 17:17 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqtwes5ysb.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160810134003.q6mzgkcrwmkxv5fw@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:36:45PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote:
>
>> > So now we have packet_write() and packet_write_gently(), but they differ
>> > in more than just whether they are gentle. That seems like a weird
>> > interface.
>> > 
>> > Should we either be picking a new name (e.g., packet_write_mem() or
>> > something), or migrating packet_write() to packet_write_fmt()?
>> 
>> Done in "[PATCH v5 08/15] pkt-line: rename packet_write() to packet_write_fmt()"
>
> Ah, OK. Generally I'd suggest to reorder things so that each patch looks
> like a step forward (and so the early patches become preparatory steps,
> and the justification in them is something like "we're going to add more
> write functions, so let's give this a more descriptive name").

I am guilty for saying "packet_write() should have been similar to write(2)". We may want to have a time-period during which there is no "packet_write()" in the codebase, before we get to that stage. I.e. rename it to packet_write_fmt() to vacate the name and add packet_write_mem(), and then later rename packet_write_mem() to its final name packet_write(), or something like that. The two-step process would reduce the chance of misconversion.