"Tree Roots Tree"/"Historic Tree"

[benesjan]

There is an issue with how we call the trees containing the historic roots. In some places we refer to it as "historic tree" and in other places we call it "tree roots tree". I think that "tree roots tree" is a better name because it's clear that it refers to the tree containing roots and it can't be confused with an old version of some tree.

Would everyone agree?

Note: Might make sense to handle this once this discussion is settled because it's possible we will change how we store the roots.

[LHerskind]

The tree roots tree is always used for historic data no? So maybe more telling if we rename it the as historic_roots_tree.

[iAmMichaelConnor]

I was finding names like private_data_tree_roots_tree a bit confusing to read, when speccing. So I slowly started migrating to tree_of_historic_private_data_tree_roots. Now I hate putting of in names. But when the word tree appears twice, it felt necessary to make it read like a sentence, rather than a giant compound adjective in front of tree.

For the historic_roots_tree suggestion, where do you put the name of the tree? historic_private_data_tree_roots_tree? historic_roots_of_nullifier_tree_tree? private_data_tree_historic_roots_tree? The last one could work.

I'd be happy with:

• private_data_tree_historic_roots_tree Edit - I now don't like this, haha
• tree_of_historic_private_data_tree_roots <- preferred.

[benesjan]

If we had only 1 tree containing all the tree's roots in its leaves historic_roots_tree would be a great name 👀

[LHerskind]

I will take on this, spoke with @iAmMichaelConnor earlier, and we had some ideas for what could be useful to get in here for some neat statements down the line.

[iAmMichaelConnor]

@Maddiaa0 is this issue still relevant, in light of your latest block hashes tree / transations tree work?

[Maddiaa0]

@iAmMichaelConnor This issue is what kicked off the proposal, it can be closed as it is superseded by this tracking issue #849, as its scope contains this work and then some