On Wed, 9 Aug 2017 14:00:40 +0200 Christian Couder <christian.couder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:50 PM, Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Aug 2017 13:36:24 -0700 > > Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> There are also packed refs, so one could (like I did) think that > >> pack.c is for generic packing of things, maybe packfile.c > >> would be more clear? > > > > Good point. I'll use packfile.c and packfile.h in the next version. > > It looks like you used "packfile.c" and "pack.h" in v2. Is there a > reason why it's not using "packfile.h"? Ah, I forgot to mention this in the cover letter. I thought that one header was sufficient to cover all pack-related things, so if we wanted to know which files used pack-related things, we would only need to search for one string instead of two. Also, the division between "pack.h" and the hypothetical "packfile.h" was not so clear to me.
