On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 12:34:03PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > There still are a handful of "pack-file" remaining in the > documentation set, even after applying these three that changes > 6 instances of 'pack-file' to 'packfile'. > > git-index-pack.txt:'git index-pack' [-v] [-o <index-file>] <pack-file> > git-index-pack.txt: [<pack-file>] > git-index-pack.txt: instead and a copy is then written to <pack-file>. If > git-index-pack.txt: <pack-file> is not specified, the pack is written to > git-index-pack.txt: <pack-file> is not specified consider using --keep to > git-unpack-objects.txt:'git unpack-objects' [-n] [-q] [-r] [--strict] < <pack-file> > technical/pack-heuristics.txt: <linus> Anyway, the pack-file could easily be denser still, but > technical/pack-heuristics.txt: <linus> In particular, while the pack-file is then compressed, > technical/pack-heuristics.txt: <linus> Anyway: I'm not even trying to claim that the pack-files > technical/pack-protocol.txt: update-request = *shallow ( command-list | push-cert ) [pack-file] > technical/pack-protocol.txt: pack-file = "PACK" 28*(OCTET) > user-manual.txt:[[pack-files]] > > A quick "git grep packfile" vs "git grep pack-file" inside > Documentation/ directory indicates that we seem to use 'packfile' > primarily in the lower-level technical documents that are not > end-user facing. Almost half of them are in the release notes > that we won't bother "fixing", so it might make sense to go the > other way around, consistently using "pack-file" that may be more > familiar to end-users. > > What do others think? I was aware of the other instances of 'pack-file'. The only case where 'pack-file' does occur after my patches, though, was as command line parameters, where I didn't want to change it. If that's desired I can whip up another patch. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature