Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com>, 21 Tem 2023 Cum, 12:48 tarihinde şunu yazdı:
> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:24 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 12:05 PM Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 3:39 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > The other thing I noticed is that we > > > > don't seem to be consistent in naming functions in these files. For > > > > example, shall we make all exposed functions follow camel case (like > > > > InitializeLogRepWorker) and static functions follow _ style (like > > > > run_apply_worker) or the other possibility is to use _ style for all > > > > functions except may be the entry functions like ApplyWorkerMain()? I > > > > don't know if there is already a pattern but if not then let's form > it > > > > now, so that code looks consistent. > > > > > > > > > > +1 for using some consistent rule, but I think this may result in > > > *many* changes, so it would be safer to itemize all the changes first, > > > just to make sure everybody is OK with it first before updating > > > everything. > > > > > > > Fair enough. We can do that as a first patch and then work on the > > refactoring patch to avoid introducing more inconsistencies or we can > > do the refactoring patch first but keep all the new function names to > > follow _ style. > > > > Fixing the naming inconsistency will be more far-reaching than just a > few functions affected by these "reuse" patches. There are plenty of > existing functions already inconsistently named in the HEAD code. So > perhaps this topic should be moved to a separate thread? > +1 for moving it to a separate thread. This is not something particularly introduced by this patch. Thanks, -- Melih Mutlu Microsoft
