Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:36:45PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote: > >> > So now we have packet_write() and packet_write_gently(), but they differ >> > in more than just whether they are gentle. That seems like a weird >> > interface. >> > >> > Should we either be picking a new name (e.g., packet_write_mem() or >> > something), or migrating packet_write() to packet_write_fmt()? >> >> Done in "[PATCH v5 08/15] pkt-line: rename packet_write() to packet_write_fmt()" > > Ah, OK. Generally I'd suggest to reorder things so that each patch looks > like a step forward (and so the early patches become preparatory steps, > and the justification in them is something like "we're going to add more > write functions, so let's give this a more descriptive name"). I am guilty for saying "packet_write() should have been similar to write(2)". We may want to have a time-period during which there is no "packet_write()" in the codebase, before we get to that stage. I.e. rename it to packet_write_fmt() to vacate the name and add packet_write_mem(), and then later rename packet_write_mem() to its final name packet_write(), or something like that. The two-step process would reduce the chance of misconversion. -- 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
