Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] pkt-line: support tracing verbatim pack contents

From: Jeff King <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 12:43:11 -0400

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 09:39:19AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> As to the documentation, I have a feeling that, unless the reader
> and/or the user intimately knows that TRACE_PACK is implemented by
> hooking into the same mechanism that TRACE_PACKET needs to, s/he
> would not even wonder if TRACE_PACKET needs to be enabled when
> asking for TRACE_PACK.  Yes, one is a proper substring of the other,
> but the similarity between the two stops there.  While I do not
> think it would hurt very much to mention that they are independent,
> I have a slight suspicion that it might make it more likely to get
> user confused.

Yes, I was just re-reading the documentation based on Augie's comment,
and it seems pretty clear to me. Of course I wrote it, so that is not
saying much. Augie, I'd be happy to hear a proposed wording change if
you have one.

I do kind of hate the name TRACE_PACK for two reasons:

  - it _is_ so close to TRACE_PACKET; maybe TRACE_PACKFILE would be
    better

  - it does not indicate that it is about on-the-wire packs. I.e., it
    has nothing to do with "git repack". But I could not think of a good
    succinct name to indicate that.

-Peff