From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A194020281 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2017 12:52:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751355AbdIWMwR (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Sep 2017 08:52:17 -0400 Received: from mail-pg0-f49.google.com ([74.125.83.49]:56000 "EHLO mail-pg0-f49.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750959AbdIWMwQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 23 Sep 2017 08:52:16 -0400 Received: by mail-pg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id b11so1858179pgn.12 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2017 05:52:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=+L/NNGdcqmk7M/Ky9Zg9Ho2cgRPR9vPYYv7zWoetuIc=; b=dhbi0XZ2A9jiuGCG0Fb3mU+kzb+FExt0H2GV/CerklHMXpBKrBWAoqqezNiQLy62nS IBhr6b/ibRCpuCQDdWfn/OKUg14ZWe/HL7lzN+I9gJq6UTlISNFq/Y28kzIKZJ2Y9qEh tnWeaPq7tSVCYRlHuFMdwD1Drv3nEJulSzO+Yaa7V4jFaqzUejG/AprtMIHfXZll2niK tfGIxz3sGts+4bo2yAovfh3IPPMGLVrWOmj6rAqiGhqnXuPpVlbTgYdGbVYU6DTRBgh+ YxnEhzr6uzPHmEXAGIjZgMo6Zi90tL1ktaKhF3/TCa5d8A/t8OIIFtkHxfGeNjMhFHDY 0KfA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=+L/NNGdcqmk7M/Ky9Zg9Ho2cgRPR9vPYYv7zWoetuIc=; b=AYfd2WEuf4pBu7pzqwayzhyPzGQu6bNWCYvcIVmpHahdyOnDU1Gj6gh+BDAgeaYiJH g68OokO12GRAdc5ZiTWxGEH9QBckVB/gOErwKr1jupx4Qi/geRnXGPntjmWfHOz6CDgo NY8Vr2Wh9YLgePznwAFBPAGQLDN5oDaUzwQB27QMCN0sZjILVm9tdbWCHwrWUUmLc8B4 kSyQ3R+BaToSmVE2BiA9w/vvUukAYuDmuiB8JQ9h++OAmfSOTtxKqlqFfpa+5DOew1M3 AuzaRQdz9EcT5Cpawvsvmrz+bNB8D8qK4v71NXt6DOSmEYE0L471jSlani/pzlQN4Eau Jnqg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUgDAlH76W7cVw/ltR0Nvj85YgtC+igSE/PcVsklaskoJiJ4SPgj Uy642P6ZnlEGJIyf+ZrRwpIKccM4 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AOwi7QCC4iwOz1DJPlLD8nsjjC0X9XNuhEuyCL4G0xOjkuWZlrzFHox9u+Z/zroUyKWE2NIN7T9M4Q== X-Received: by 10.99.191.6 with SMTP id v6mr2180645pgf.284.1506171136325; Sat, 23 Sep 2017 05:52:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.4.2.238] ([14.102.72.146]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c16sm4243709pfj.123.2017.09.23.05.52.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 23 Sep 2017 05:52:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] branch: cleanup branch name validation To: Junio C Hamano Cc: git@vger.kernel.org References: <20170919071525.9404-1-kaarticsivaraam91196@gmail.com> <20170919071525.9404-4-kaarticsivaraam91196@gmail.com> <1d620d52-5326-269a-8710-160b75fada81@gmail.com> From: Kaartic Sivaraam Message-ID: <811bc0ca-b503-2917-f985-e66538f7219c@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2017 18:22:06 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-Cyberoam-smtpxy-version: 1.0.6.3 X-Cyberoam-AV-Policy: default X-CTCH-Error: Unable to connect local ctasd Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thursday 21 September 2017 07:07 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Kaartic Sivaraam writes: > >> Thanks for giving a better alternative. Sounds catchy. How about >> `validate_branch_creation`? > I do not know what you meant by "catchy", I was intending that 'ok_to_create_branch' was a "nice alternative" when I said catchy (I should better be more clear in the future). > but "git grep ok_to_" will > tell you that ok-to-$do-something is quite an establish phrasing (if > I thought it was a bad way to name it, I would have explicitly said > so). > Well, it might be an established phrase but I feel that the 'ok_to' part of the name implies that it returns some sort of boolean value ('ok' or 'not ok') rather than the status. This doesn't seem to be the case for the `validate_new_branchname` which returns values only upon success and dies in case of failure (Note: only the PATCH 4/5 in the series adds the logic to return a value in case of failure; when requested). So, I find the name "ok_to_create_branch" to be less communicative. Though I don't find the name "validate_branch_creation" to be conveys this meaning any better; I thought of using it as it doesn't seem to be implying a boolean return value. --- Kaartic