Re: [PATCH 00/11] Fix inconsistent ref storage format terminology

Patrick Steinhardt [off-list ref] writes:

Hi,

back when we gained support for reftables we of course introduced the
ability to control the reference storage format that is used by newly
created repositories. This infrastructure has grown over time, and
unfortunately without a lot of consistency:

  - The command line parameter to specify the ref storage format is
    called "--ref-format=", while the corresponding repository extension
    is called "refStorage".

  - In most cases we refer to the "ref storage format" in our docs, so
    calling it "--ref-format=" is inconsistent with them.

  - It is possible to override the ref storage format via an environment
    variable that is called "GIT_REFERENCE_BACKEND", which is not even
    remotely consistent with anything else.

  - There is also an "object format", but that format does not control
    how we store objects but rather whether we use SHA1 or SHA256.

So in summary, it's a huge mess.

Unless you are unifying them all into a single ref-storage-format, I
do not see much practical difference between ref-storage and
ref-format.  They are both with insufficient clarity and details.

ref-format fails to convey "format" of what aspect of ref it is
about (among "storage", "name", and others), ref-storage fails to
convey what aspect of ref storage it is talking about (among
"format", "medium", and others).