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

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 03:36:45PM +0200, Lars Schneider wrote:

quoted

quoted

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.