>
I do not see much point in renaming between these two. The latter
makes it sound as if this is only for "filtering" and from that
angle of view is probably a worse name. If you do not think of a
better one, and if you are going to name the array that contains
this thing "ref_list", calling "ref_list_item" would be following
suit to what string-list did.
>
Well I just wanted to keep it related to 'ref-filter', I think
'ref_list_item'
sounds better after seeing your point of view.
I somehow had an impression that we are trying to move away from
calling the name of objects as "sha1[]" as a longer term goal? I do
not think it is particularly a good idea to start using "struct
object_id" in this series (it can be done after everything is done
and you still have time left in GSoC), but I do not see how much
value this interim renaming (because eventually we would change not
just name but type, and the final name will _not_ be sha1[] but more
closer to "object name") adds value.
>
I did that to resemble whats usually being used in similar structures,
a simple grep of "sha1[20];" resulted in 344 uses.
I didn't know about the "we are trying to move away from calling the
name of objects as "sha1[]"". Will leave it as objectname then.
You didn't explain why you reordered the fields, either. Were you
planning to make the name[] field to flex-array to reduce need for
one level of redirection or something?
Yes! exactly why the re-order, was going to rebase it and squash it in,
if the code seemed to be up and running.
I agree that "grab" part of "grab_ref_cbdata" sounds unprofessional,
and using "ref_filter_" to signal that this callback data is about
ref-filter API might be a good idea (I do not think the original is
too bad, either, though). I do not think you would use this struct
anywhere other than as the callback data; you would want to end its
name with "_cbdata", not just "_data", to make it clear why these
two unrelated things are in a single struct (the only time these two
concepts, operation and operatee, meet is when they need to be
passed to an "apply operation to operatee" function; there is no
such "this set of operatee always are for this operation"
association between them---which is what I mean by 'two unrelated
things').
sure, will do :) thanks for putting that out.
It was perfectly good name as a file-scope static; within the
context of 'for-each-ref' implementation, when every somebody says
"atom", you would know it is those %(atomic-data-item) things, and
parse_atom() would be a helper function to do so.
But it is *WAY* too generic a name to make public, where you are
naming things in the whole context of Git implementation. If you
used the word "atom" while discussing formatting done with "git
for-each-ref" with somebody else, it would be unambiguously clear
what you mean; you wouldn't say "I am writing a function to parse
'atoms' in Git"---that's too broad and you will get "'atom', in what
sense?" in response.
Ditto.
Yes, that does seem to be too vague for a public function name, will
amend it.
As long as this will stay private within the new ref-filter.c after
the move, this name is OK.
That'll mostly stay private, if required will change the name along.
I see fallouts from the two renamed fields in the above hunks. Was
the rename necessary?
refinfo keeps two names (ref and object) and calling one "refname"
made perfect sense (and calling other "objectname" did, too). Has
anything around its use changed to invalidate that rationale after
the structure was renamed?
I guess it was unnecessary, my bad.
>
When we say 'flag', it is obvious that it is a "flag word", i.e. a
word that holds collection of flags. Otherwise, we would have named
each "unsigned foo_flag : 1" with meaningful names. Was it
necessary to make the field name longer?
Just felt flags to be more descriptive, well "Otherwise, we would have
named each "unsigned foo_flag : 1" with meaningful names. " makes sense.
> @@ -688,7 +702,7 @@ static void populate_value(struct refinfo *ref)
> v->s = xstrdup(buf + 1);
> }
> continue;
> - } else if (!deref && grab_objectname(name, ref->objectname,
v)) {
> + } else if (!deref && grab_objectname(name, ref->sha1, v)) {
> continue;
Mental note: grab_objectname() still remains, so I'd guess that it
will not be moved from this file or it will stay private after it is
moved.
It will be private.
>
Another mental note: it was a consistent naming for the function to
grab objectname to store the result into objectname[] field. Now it
stores into sha1[] field.
yes, seems a bit off.
Yuck; I can see what you are doing but can you imitate what the more
experienced people (e.g. peff, mhagger) do when restructuring
existing code and do things in smaller increments? For example, I
think it should be a separate preparatory patch, even before these
renames of structures, fields and functions, to extract this helper
function out of grab_single_ref() function.
Shall do so.
And extracting this could be another separate preparatory step
before renames (but I didn't look too closely).
Sure.
>
I won't be commenting on the remainder of the patch in this message,
as I need to step out. I see quite a many instances of the same
"overly generic public names" in your "s/static //".
Will work on it, thanks for the suggestions.
--
Regards,
Karthik
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
