On 24 Sep 2016, at 23:14, Jakub Narębski <jna...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Lars,
> W dniu 20.09.2016 o 21:02, larsxschnei...@gmail.com pisze:
>> From: Lars Schneider <larsxschnei...@gmail.com>
>> packet_write() should be called packet_write_fmt() as the string
>> parameter can be formatted.
> I would say:
> packet_write() should be called packet_write_fmt() because it
> is printf-like function where first parameter is format string.
> Or something like that. But such minor change might be not worth
> yet another reroll of this patch series.
> Perhaps it would be a good idea to explain the reasoning behind
> this change:
> This is important distinction to know from the name if the
> function accepts arbitrary binary data and/or arbitrary
> strings to be written - packet_write[_fmt()] do not.
packet_write() should be called packet_write_fmt() because it is a
printf-like function that takes a format string as first parameter.
packet_write_fmt() should be used for text strings only. Arbitrary
binary data should use a new packet_write() function that is introduced
in a subsequent patch.
>> pkt-line.h | 2 +-
>> shallow.c | 2 +-
>> upload-pack.c | 30 +++++++++++++++---------------
>> 11 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> Diffstat looks correct. Was the patch generated by doing search
> and replace?