From: Junio C Hamano Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2025 16:16:58 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/13] object-file: introduce `struct odb_loose_source` Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Patrick Steinhardt writes: >> Hm, I see your point. I think that "loose source" flows a bit more >> natural, but I agree that the above is more accessible in code. >> >> Before I change this: does anybody else have an opinion here? > > I think for now I'll stick to the current naming. This is due to two > reasons: Ah, I should have scanned my mailbox down to the end before starting to respond. > > - As said, I think this flows more naturally in language. When talking > about this you'll say "I'm using the files source" or "I'm using the > whatever source". I do not happen to agree with this, although my preference is minor. > - It somewhat matches the naming we have in the reference backends, > where we have `struct reftable_backend` and `struct files_backend`. loose_source (without odb) may mirror calling "ref backend that uses files" files_backend, because "ref" is redundant in the context of talking about ref backends. "odb" is redundant when talking about odb sources. But we are not calling them loose_odb_source, hbase_odb_source, etc. and instead saying "odb_loose_source", which I find is a bit strange order. > That being said I don't feel very strong about this. Neither do I.