Hi Phillip, On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 5:33 PM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 30/06/2022 15:24, Siddharth Asthana wrote: > > We will be using commit_rewrite_person() in git-cat-file to rewrite > > ident line in commit/tag object buffers. s/line/lines/ > > Following are the reason for renaming commit_rewrite_person(): > > - the function can be used not only on a commit buffer, but also on a > > tag object buffer, so having "commit" in its name is misleading. > > - the function works on the ident line in the commit/tag object buffers, > > just like "split_ident_line()". Since these functions are related they > > should have similar terms for uniformity. > > I'm afraid I'm not sure about this change as the interface for > split_ident_line() and commit_rewrite_person() are not uniform. > split_ident_line() takes a pointer to the beginning of the name in an > ident line and a length. commit_rewrite_person() takes the whole commit > buffer and searches for the ident line based on the argument "what". I > agree that having commit in the name of the function is confusing when > it can be used for a tag, but having line in the name when it takes a > whole buffer is also confusing. It takes a whole buffer but it rewrites only ident lines, so maybe "rewrite_ident_lines()" (so with "lines" instead of "line"). > Maybe buffer_rewrite_person() or > something like that would be clearer? I don't think "person" is better than "ident" for this, and I think it's better to use the same name for it in split_ident_line() and the function we are renaming. It's true that we are not rewriting the date, so maybe "rewrite_person_in_ident_lines()". Thanks, Christian.
