Thanks for the good feedback. On 08/02/2011 05:46 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michael Haggerty <mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> This described its purpose better, especially when used with >> git_allattrs(). > > You probably meant s/described/describes/ but more importantly does it > really? It is a structure used to probe into the attributes system for the > state of various attributes on a path, and the set of possible states > includes "there is no value" (aka unset), so it feels actively wrong to > call it attr_value and that is why I didn't call it in the first place. I don't think it is so unusual for a "value" object to be able to reflect the fact that the value is unset, but I can understand your point of view too. I will omit this renaming in the re-roll. > I also think git_all_attrs() (i.e. word-break underscore after "all") is > more in line with the naming throughout the codebase, after looking at > output from > > $ git grep -e _all'[a-z]' --and --not -e alloc -e _all_ -- '*.c' > > Other than these, and the earlier comment about the copy&paste done from > git_checkattr (which by the way should probably be "git_check_attr"), it > seems that the series mostly consist of good clean-ups and an addition of > a new and (probably) useful feature that is straightforward. Nice. I thought the name was awkward, too, but I chose it to be consistent with git_checkattr(). So in the re-roll I will happily rename both functions. Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhagger@xxxxxxxxxxxx http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html