Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/19] tree-diff: rework diff_tree interface to be sha1 based

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:34:24 -0700

Kirill Smelkov <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:46:32AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Kirill Smelkov <[email-masked]> writes:
>> 
>> > What are the downsides of "__" prefix by the way?
>> 
>> Aren't these names reserved for compiler/runtime implementations?
>
> Yes, but there are precedents when people don't obey it widely and
> in practice everything works :)

I think you are alluding to the practice in the Linux kernel, but
their requirement is vastly different---their product do not even
link with libc and they always compile with specific selected
versions of gcc, no?

> Let it be something portable anyway -
> how about diff_tree_sha1_low() ?

Sure.

As this is a file-scope static, I do not think the exact naming
matters that much.  Just FYI, we seem to use ll_ prefix (standing
for low-level) in some places.

Thanks.