On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 09:23:28AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > > > Hi Junio, > > > > On Tue, 13 Oct 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > >> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > Somewhat related: I was wondering whether it would make sense for git.git > >> > to rename `strbuf` to `git_buf`? Would that make it easier to exchange > >> > code between the two projects? Or would it just be unnecessary churn? > >> > >> To us, "git_buf" is just as descriptive as "buf" and does not say > >> anything about the nature of 'buf' (other than apparently it was > >> invented and widely used here). "git_strbuf" I can understand, but > >> why should we? > > > > If it makes code sharing between git.git and libgit2 easier, why shouldn't > > we ;-) > > I see no reasonably explanation why libgit2 is not the one who uses > "#define strbuf git_buf" to make "sharing easier", though. It probably wouldn't help much anyway. We already have our own buffer type which we can't easily replace with yours as it's part of the public interface. If the need arises, providing a compatibility interface for it shouldn't be too hard. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
