You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
A long term (but rather minor) pet-peeve of mine was the name
ll-merge.[ch]. I thought it made it harder to realize what stuff was
related to merging when I was working on the merge machinery and trying
to improve it.
Further, back in d1cbe1e ("hash-ll.h: split out of hash.h to remove
dependency on repository.h", 2023-04-22), we have split the portions of
hash.h that do not depend upon repository.h into a "hash-ll.h" (due to
the recommendation to use "ll" for "low-level" in its name[1], but which
I used as a suffix precisely because of my distaste for "ll-merge").
When we discussed adding additional "*-ll.h" files, a request was made
that we use "ll" consistently as either a prefix or a suffix. Since it
is already in use as both a prefix and a suffix, the only way to do so
is to rename some files.
Besides my distaste for the ll-merge.[ch] name, let me also note that
the files
ll-fsmonitor.h, ll-hash.h, ll-merge.h, ll-object-store.h, ll-read-cache.h
would have essentially nothing to do with each other and make no sense
to group. But giving them the common "ll-" prefix would group them. Using
"-ll" as a suffix thus seems just much more logical to me. Rename
ll-merge.[ch] to merge-ll.[ch] to achieve this consistency, and to
ensure we get a more logical grouping of files.
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/git/kl6lsfcu1g8w.fsf@chooglen-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com/
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
0 commit comments