Re: [PATCH 14/23] hash.h, repository.h: reverse the order of these dependencies

[Glen Choo <chooglen@google.com>]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Derrick Stolee <derrickstolee@github.com> writes:
>
>> This is mostly because most consumers in the Git codebase will want
>> these methods, and only the most fundamental hashing code will care
>> about hashing separate from the_hash_algo. So, the most-natural name
>> for "the header file that lets me hash stuff" would be "hash.h" and
>> "hash-basics.h" is for "I'm doing very simple, low-level hashing".
>
> I do agree with the reasoning for "most people want 'hash.h'"; what
> is called the "basics" sounds more like for advanced users of the
> low-level machinery, but somehow I expect "basic" would the one to
> be used in sample programs in tutorials or something.  "ll-hash.h"
> for low-level hash features?  I dunno.
>
> But whatever the name for the header file meant to be used by
> "advanced callers to low-level machinery" would be, I like your
> choice of the latter variant between the ones Elijah presented.

FWIW, I also think this is a good idea. I suspect that a lot of the
libification effort will need a similar distinction between "a subsystem
supporting the needs of the git binary" (aka high-level) and "basic,
reusable functionality that can be its own library" (aka low-level).