On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:00:40 +0200
Christian Couder <christian.cou...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Jonathan Tan <jonathanta...@google.com>
> > On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:36:24 -0700
> > Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> wrote:
> >> There are also packed refs, so one could (like I did) think that
> >> pack.c is for generic packing of things, maybe packfile.c
> >> would be more clear?
> > Good point. I'll use packfile.c and packfile.h in the next version.
> It looks like you used "packfile.c" and "pack.h" in v2. Is there a
> reason why it's not using "packfile.h"?
Ah, I forgot to mention this in the cover letter. I thought that one
header was sufficient to cover all pack-related things, so if we wanted
to know which files used pack-related things, we would only need to
search for one string instead of two. Also, the division between
"pack.h" and the hypothetical "packfile.h" was not so clear to me.