From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp40.i.mail.ru (smtp40.i.mail.ru [94.100.177.100]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A08C0430D56 for ; Mon, 28 Oct 2019 10:52:50 +0300 (MSK) Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2019 10:52:49 +0300 From: Kirill Yukhin Message-ID: <20191028075249.3ued3ok4t3jjsgxy@tarantool.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [tarantool-patches] [PATCH 0/2] JSON update pre-preparation List-Id: Tarantool development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: tarantool-patches@freelists.org Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org Hello, On 26 окт 00:53, Vladislav Shpilevoy wrote: > The patchset is a preparation for the JSON update preparation. > > The main commit is the second one. It renames internals of > tuple_update.c from update_* to xrow_update_*. > > Why it is done - see the commit message. > > After we decide on naming of update structures and functions, I > will rebase the main JSON preparation patch > (gerold103/gh-1261-update-json-preparation-3) on new names. > > This patchset is actually an RFC, because I don't like > xrow_update_ prefix. It is bulky, too long, and most of the names, > having it, look unclear. > > I would like to either keep update_ prefix, or use xupdate_ - both > are better than xrow_update_, IMO. But actually I don't really > care already, so I will name it whatever helps to push it. > > Branch: http://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/tree/gerold103/gh-1261-update-json-preparation-4 > Issue: https://github.com/tarantool/tarantool/issues/1261 I've checked your patch set into master. -- Regards, Kirill Yukhin