Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Yeah, I agree they should agree with the EBNF. And my inclination is for > "packfile", as it is refering to the concept of the on-the-wire packfile > data (there is no "file ending in .pack" in this context). > > Which I guess argues for a further patch. I'm fine with that, then. If I had a time machine, I would have used "pack data" (or "pack stream") vs "pack file" (or ".pack file") to differentiatee (as the pack-protocol is not about transferring any "file", but just carries "pack data"), but that is a rename with more cost than warranted for a minuscule gain at this point. -- 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