On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 11:55:46 -0700
Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote:
> My reading hiccupped after the first sentence, as the problem
> description made it sound like this was a boolean ("are we using
> lazy object feature?"), after reading "data type string". And then
> "the command in that option" made me hiccup one more time, as it did
> not "click" that "in that option" was trying to say that the string
> is used as the command name (or is it a whole command line? The
> leading part of the command line to which some arguments are
> appended before it gets invoked as a command? or what?).
>
> Logically, I think it is more like
>
> - extensions.lazyobject can be set to tell Git to consider missing
> objects in certain cases are not errors;
>
> - the value of extensions.lazyobject variable must be a string,
> which is used to name the command to lazily make the object
> "appear" in the repository on demand.
OK, I'll update the commit message in the next reroll.
> > extern int repository_format_precious_objects;
> > +extern char *repository_format_lazy_object;
>
> This is not a new problem, but I think these two should be
> called repository_extension_$NAME not repository_format_$NAME.
Looking at the original commit 067fbd4 ("introduce "preciousObjects"
repository extension", 2015-06-24), it seems that this was so named to
be analogous to the existing "struct repository_format { int version;
...}" => "int repository_format_version;". The existing
repository_format_$NAME thus seems reasonable to me.
