Re: [PATCH] advice: refactor advise API

[Heba Waly <heba.waly@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Feb 11, 2020 at 8:42 AM Taylor Blau <me@ttaylorr.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 11:30:46AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > Another thing.
> >
> > advise_ng() may have been a good name for illustration but is a
> > horrible name for real-world use (imagine we need to revamp the API
> > one more time in the future---what would it be called, which has to
> > say that it is newer than the "next generation"?
> > advise_3rd_try()?).

As I mentioned earlier, this patch is meant to be used as a transition
between the current advise() and the refactored one.
So the name is just temporary and it'll be renamed to advise() once
the transition is done.
But if we want to keep both functions, or want a better name because
it's an open-source project and the author might not complete the
transition, then I'll try to think of another name.

> What about calling this new API 'advise()'? The first patch could call
> it 'advise_ng' or whatever other temporary name we feel comfortable
> using, and then each subsequent patch would update callers of 'advise()'
> to use 'advise_ng()'. Once those patches have been applied, and no other
> callers of 'advise()' exist, a final patch can be applied on top to
> rename 'advise_ng()' to 'advise()', and update the names of all of the
> callers.
>

Yes, that's what I would like to do.

> This makes for a rather noisy final patch, but the intermediate states
> are much clearer, and it would make this series rather self-contained.
>
> On the other hand, having a version of 'advise_ng()' on master makes
> this topic more incremental, meaning that we can pick it up and put it
> down at ease and have more self-contained projects.
>
> I don't really have a preference between the two approaches, but if we
> go with the latter, I do think we need something better than
> 'advise_ng'. Maybe 'advise_warn'? I don't know.
>
> > Thanks.
>
> Thanks,
> Taylor

Thanks,
Heba