Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] environment, fsck: introduce lazyobject extension

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, peartben@gmail.com, christian.couder@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] environment, fsck: introduce lazyobject extension
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2017 17:21:12 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqinicks93.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170728165035.2be61cec@twelve2.svl.corp.google.com> (Jonathan Tan's message of "Fri, 28 Jul 2017 16:50:35 -0700")

Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com> writes:

>> >  extern int repository_format_precious_objects;
>> > +extern char *repository_format_lazy_object;
>> 
>> This is not a new problem, but I think these two should be
>> called repository_extension_$NAME not repository_format_$NAME.
>
> Looking at the original commit 067fbd4 ("introduce "preciousObjects"
> repository extension", 2015-06-24), it seems that this was so named to
> be analogous to the existing "struct repository_format { int version;
> ...}" => "int repository_format_version;". The existing
> repository_format_$NAME thus seems reasonable to me.

OK.  They smell like "repository extension" to me, but probably the
fully spelled name of the concept is "repository format extension",
so using the word "format" out of that phrase sounds OK to me.

Thanks.