From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D7D2C7EE22 for ; Thu, 11 May 2023 17:01:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238739AbjEKRBk (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 May 2023 13:01:40 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39184 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238731AbjEKRBi (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 May 2023 13:01:38 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net (cloud.peff.net [104.130.231.41]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1D8D30EE for ; Thu, 11 May 2023 10:01:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 26973 invoked by uid 109); 11 May 2023 17:01:34 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 May 2023 17:01:34 +0000 Authentication-Results: cloud.peff.net; auth=none Received: (qmail 11067 invoked by uid 111); 11 May 2023 17:01:33 -0000 Received: from coredump.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.94) with (TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 11 May 2023 13:01:33 -0400 Authentication-Results: peff.net; auth=none Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 13:01:33 -0400 From: Jeff King To: Eric Sunshine Cc: Git Mailing List , Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] fsck: mention file path for index errors Message-ID: <20230511170133.GA1977634@coredump.intra.peff.net> References: <305ccc55-25e3-6b01-cd86-9a9035839d06@sunshineco.com> <20230511161757.GA1973344@coredump.intra.peff.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 12:28:45PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > So the code is working as intended, but I may have misused the term > > "main" with respect to other worktree code. I didn't even know that was > > a concept, not having dealt much with worktrees. > > > > Maybe it's worth s/main/current/ here (and I guess in t1450)? > > Yes, s/main/current/ probably would be helpful for future readers of > the code. It's unfortunate that the term "current" can ambiguously > also be read as meaning "the up-to-date index" or "the present-time > index" as opposed to "the index in this directory/worktree", which is > the intention here. But "current" is consistent with the existing > `struct worktree.is_current`, so hopefully should not be too > confusing. I think in this context it should be pretty clear. Do you want to prepare a patch? -Peff