W dniu 26.09.2016 o 20:49, Lars Schneider pisze: > On 24 Sep 2016, at 23:14, Jakub Narębski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> W dniu 20.09.2016 o 21:02, larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx pisze: >> >>> From: Lars Schneider <larsxschneider@xxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> packet_write() should be called packet_write_fmt() as the string >>> parameter can be formatted. >> >> I would say: >> >> packet_write() should be called packet_write_fmt() because it >> is printf-like function where first parameter is format string. >> >> Or something like that. But such minor change might be not worth >> yet another reroll of this patch series. >> >> Perhaps it would be a good idea to explain the reasoning behind >> this change: >> >> This is important distinction to know from the name if the >> function accepts arbitrary binary data and/or arbitrary >> strings to be written - packet_write[_fmt()] do not. > > packet_write() should be called packet_write_fmt() because it is a > printf-like function that takes a format string as first parameter. > > packet_write_fmt() should be used for text strings only. Arbitrary > binary data should use a new packet_write() function that is introduced > in a subsequent patch. > > Better? Better. > >>> pkt-line.h | 2 +- >>> shallow.c | 2 +- >>> upload-pack.c | 30 +++++++++++++++--------------- >>> 11 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) >> >> Diffstat looks correct. Was the patch generated by doing search >> and replace? > > Yes. Good. -- Jakub Narębski