On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Yeah, I don't have one - I may have been making assumptions because I knew something of the background on your implementation. i'd say let it live and if people provide feedback later figure out a reword (writing for humans is not a strong suit of mine, alas.) > > 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 +1 on TRACE_PACKFILE - also makes it harder to accidentally leave off the ET and get binary spew when one didn't expect that. AF -- 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