On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 1:45 AM Nickolai Belakovski <nbelakovski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2018 at 9:01 PM Eric Sunshine <sunshine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > That said, I wouldn't necessarily oppose renaming the function, but I > > also don't think it's particularly important to do so. > > To me, I would just go lookup the signature of worktree_lock_reason > and see that it returns a pointer and I'd be satisfied with that. I > could also infer that from looking at the code if I'm just skimming > through. But if I see code like "reason = is_worktree_locked(wt)" I'm > like hold on, what's going on here?! :P I don't feel strongly about it, and, as indicated, wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it. If you do want to make that change, perhaps send it as the second patch of a 2-patch series in which patch 1 just updates the API documentation. That way, if anyone does oppose the rename in patch 2, then that patch can be dropped without having to re-send.
