Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 12:45:09PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> One related thing is that there are few mentions of "idx file" to
>> refer to "pack index" (e.g. show-index and verify-pack documentation
>> pages); I think this was an attempt to disambiguate "pack index"
>> from "the Index", but as long as we spell it "pack index", I think
>> it should be OK, so while we are at it we may want to fix them. We
>> can leave "pack .idx file" as-is, but rewriting it to "pack index
>> file" or just "pack index" may be OK as long as it is clear from the
>> context.
>>
>> "git show-index" has this in SYNOPSIS:
>>
>> 'git show-index' < idx-file
>>
>> It probably should become
>>
>> 'git show-index' < <pack-index>
>
> That makes "pack-file" make more sense to me. It is not "the abstract
> concept of a packfile", but "the file with the .pack extension" (just as
> "idx-file" is "the file with the .idx extension"). They are the same
> thing if you think about it, of course, but you might choose one over
> the other depending on the context.
Hmm, that is also true.
In any case, even though I merged these three to 'next', I think we
need to either revert 3/3 or do s/pack-file/packfile/ throughout the
pack-protocol documentation. The original has something like this:
The pack-file MUST NOT be sent if the only command used is 'delete'.
A pack-file MUST be sent if either create or update command is used,
even if the server already has all the necessary objects. In this
case the client MUST send an empty pack-file. The only time this
is likely to happen is if the client is creating
a new branch or a tag that points to an existing obj-id.
and these are explicitly referring to what EBNF defines as "pack-file".
Changing them to "packfile" is simply wrong.
--
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