David Turner <dturner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> I'm working on the rest now, but wanted to comment on this first. I
> went ahead and made this change, but I'm not sure I like it. In the
> git codebase, the concept will continue to be called "backend"; there
> are already-accepted patches using that terminology. Having two
> separate names for the same thing seems confusing to me.
We have the option to update whatever "are already-accepted" [*1*].
That would allow us to uniformly call it "ref storage", if we wanted
to.
In any case, we shouldn't be using an unqualified "backend" (or
"storage" for that matter); we should always say "ref", i.e. either
"ref backend" or "ref storage", in the name.
Between "backend" and "storage", I am slightly in favor of the
latter, but I am not good at naming things so...
[Footnote]
*1* Output from
$ git grep backend master --
seems to show me only
master:refs.c: * The backend-independent part of the reference module.
and all others are other kinds of backends, e.g. "merge backend",
"http-backend", etc. so that may not be too bad.
--
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