Jeremiah Mahler wrote: > This is a case where cache_name_compare() was used even though it had > nothing to do with a cache. The new name makes it clear that no cache > is involved. That's a perfect sort of thing to put in the commit message. ;-) Unlike patches 2 and 3, this could make sense to me as a separate patch from 1/5. Except... how does git work at all with patch 1 and without this patch? I thought that patch removed the public cache_name_compare function. Would it make sense to delay the removal of cache_name_compare until a patch at the end of the series? The patch is small enough that squashing into patch 1 seems fine, too. [...] > Rename the call to cache_name_compare() to name_compare(). It's not actually renaming but calling a different function, right? So I'd say something like read_directory: use name_compare instead of cache_name_compare This is a case where cache_name_compare() was used even though it had nothing to do with a cache. The new name makes it clear that no cache is involved. No functional change intended. Thanks, Jonathan -- 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