Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/16] init: allow alternate backends to be set for new repos

From: Michael Haggerty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2016 13:02:47 +0100

On 01/05/2016 07:03 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> David Turner <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
>> I'm working on the rest now, but wanted to comment on this first.  I
>> went ahead and made this change, but I'm not sure I like it.  In the
>> git codebase, the concept will continue to be called "backend"; there
>> are already-accepted patches using that terminology.  Having two
>> separate names for the same thing seems confusing to me.
> 
> We have the option to update whatever "are already-accepted" [*1*].
> That would allow us to uniformly call it "ref storage", if we wanted
> to.

...whereas whatever we name the option, we have to live with forever
because it is user-facing. It's more important to get the option name
correct (though I agree that it would be nice for the nomenclature used
in the code to be reminiscent of the option name).

Michael

-- 
Michael Haggerty
[email-masked]