Re: [PATCH v2 05/13] reftable: utility functions

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2020, 16:23 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqwnzrh30f.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2010151346060.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 17 quoted lines

> Hi Junio,
>
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>>
>> > Somewhat related: I was wondering whether it would make sense for git.git
>> > to rename `strbuf` to `git_buf`? Would that make it easier to exchange
>> > code between the two projects? Or would it just be unnecessary churn?
>>
>> To us, "git_buf" is just as descriptive as "buf" and does not say
>> anything about the nature of 'buf' (other than apparently it was
>> invented and widely used here).  "git_strbuf" I can understand, but
>> why should we?
>
> If it makes code sharing between git.git and libgit2 easier, why shouldn't
> we ;-)

I see no reasonably explanation why libgit2 is not the one who uses "#define strbuf git_buf" to make "sharing easier", though.