On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 07:23:27AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > What is the extra blank line doing there? It makes reader wonder > why the .fsck member is somehow very special and different from > others. Is there a valid reason to single it out (and no, "yes this > is special because I invented it" does not count as a valid reason)? > > The same comment applies to a few other places in this patch. The interfaces defined in the `ref_storage_be` are carefully structured in semantic. It is organized as the five parts at now: 1. The name and the initialization interfaces. 2. The ref transaction interfaces. 3. The ref internal interfaces (pack, rename and copy). 4. The ref filesystem interfaces. 5. The reflog related interfaces. I firstly thought that we could just add a new function into the ref internal interfaces part with the name `check_refs_fn`. However, the ultimate goal is not only to achieve consistency check of refs but also consistency check of reflogs. So it's not suitable to name this interface to `check_refs_fn`. In order to keep consistent with the git-fsck, we decide to name this interface to `fsck_fn`. This semantic cannot be grouped into any above five categories in my view. So I deliberately add a blank line to indicate its independence.
