On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:39:19AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> As to the documentation, I have a feeling that, unless the reader
> and/or the user intimately knows that TRACE_PACK is implemented by
> hooking into the same mechanism that TRACE_PACKET needs to, s/he
> would not even wonder if TRACE_PACKET needs to be enabled when
> asking for TRACE_PACK. Yes, one is a proper substring of the other,
> but the similarity between the two stops there. While I do not
> think it would hurt very much to mention that they are independent,
> I have a slight suspicion that it might make it more likely to get
> user confused.
Yes, I was just re-reading the documentation based on Augie's comment,
and it seems pretty clear to me. Of course I wrote it, so that is not
saying much. Augie, I'd be happy to hear a proposed wording change if
you have one.
I do kind of hate the name TRACE_PACK for two reasons:
- it _is_ so close to TRACE_PACKET; maybe TRACE_PACKFILE would be
better
- it does not indicate that it is about on-the-wire packs. I.e., it
has nothing to do with "git repack". But I could not think of a good
succinct name to indicate that.
-Peff
--
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