On 8/9/2017 1:16 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote:
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> wrote:
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.
I prefer having source and the header files that export the functions
have matching names to make it easy to find them. I would prefer
packfile.h vs pack.h myself.
