On Thu, May 19 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> On Wed, May 18 2022, Taylor Blau wrote:
>>
>> Nit:
>>
>>> + - A 4-byte magic number '0x4d544d45' ('MTME').
>>> +
>>> + - A 4-byte version identifier (= 1).
>>> +
>>> + - A 4-byte hash function identifier (= 1 for SHA-1, 2 for SHA-256).
>>
>> Here we let it suffice that later we'll say "All 4-byte numbers are in
>> network order".
>>
>>> + - A table of 4-byte unsigned integers in network order. The ith
>>
>> But here we call out "network order" explicitly, shouldn't this just be
>> s/ in network order//?
>>
>>> + value is the modification time (mtime) of the ith object in the
>>> + corresponding pack by lexicographic (index) order. The mtimes
>>> + count standard epoch seconds.
>>> +
>>> + - A trailer, containing a checksum of the corresponding packfile,
>>> + and a checksum of all of the above (each having length according
>>> + to the specified hash function).
>>> +
>>> +All 4-byte numbers are in network order.
>>
>> I.e. this is sufficient.
>
> Very good eyes. One explicit mention among several others can
> indeed be misleading the readers.
>
> When asked for "network order", all your search engines show are
> entries about "network byte order", so let's use that longer form of
> spelling.
*Nod*, note that "network order" is on "master" already though,
i.e. this section re-used a template introduced in 2f4ba2a867f
(packfile: prepare for the existence of '*.rev' files, 2021-01-25) just
above this hunk.
Before that change the rest of the file used "network byte order"
consistently.
