Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/15] pkt-line: add packet_write_gently()

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:17:24 -0700

Jeff King <[email-masked]> writes:

> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:36:45PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote:
>
>> > So now we have packet_write() and packet_write_gently(), but they differ
>> > in more than just whether they are gentle. That seems like a weird
>> > interface.
>> > 
>> > Should we either be picking a new name (e.g., packet_write_mem() or
>> > something), or migrating packet_write() to packet_write_fmt()?
>> 
>> Done in "[PATCH v5 08/15] pkt-line: rename packet_write() to packet_write_fmt()"
>
> Ah, OK. Generally I'd suggest to reorder things so that each patch looks
> like a step forward (and so the early patches become preparatory steps,
> and the justification in them is something like "we're going to add more
> write functions, so let's give this a more descriptive name").

I am guilty for saying "packet_write() should have been similar to
write(2)".  We may want to have a time-period during which there is
no "packet_write()" in the codebase, before we get to that stage.
I.e. rename it to packet_write_fmt() to vacate the name and add
packet_write_mem(), and then later rename packet_write_mem() to its
final name packet_write(), or something like that.  The two-step
process would reduce the chance of misconversion.