-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 38.8k
CChainState -> Chainstate #24513
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
CChainState -> Chainstate #24513
Conversation
003d4af to
5977234
Compare
|
Ok, where is @jamesob and what have you done to him. |
|
The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers. ConflictsReviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:
If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first. |
|
Concept ACK, but need song-and-dance interpretation of the PR description |
|
I'm sort of tepid on whether this is worth doing, but supposing it were, I think I'd prefer ChainState over Chainstate. The reason/question is, are expressions/words like "chain state", "fee rate", and "block hash" each one word or two? For me, and maybe for people not closely familiar since years with Bitcoin development, they are two words--at least originally, which I guess is why there are classes in the codebase like CChainState and CFeeRate. I usually grep case-indifferently anyway, so this wouldn't change anything (if it doesn't break anything). Just one weakly held light opinion. |
|
ACK 5977234384da1f52475fc8165c52830750bf7d2a |
|
I was reading through some of @jonatack's notes and found this old quote from Greg Maxwell:
I don't have a strong enough opinion to NACK this PR but the above seems to add some historical context behind previous attempts to do renames like this which may be helpful for other reviewers. |
|
Introducing "Stockholm syndrome: the PR" ? We have |
ryanofsky
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Code review ACK 5977234384da1f52475fc8165c52830750bf7d2a
ryanofsky
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Code review ACK e2c9115af2db4b5aa1f1d2333946fb22912e500d. Just rebased since last review
e2c9115 to
30ee3d3
Compare
|
I sometimes see myself running into compile errors when typing Any reason why there are two commits and not a single one? A |
-BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT- sed -i 's/CChainState/Chainstate/g' $(git grep -l CChainState ':(exclude)doc/release-notes*') -END VERIFY SCRIPT- Co-authored-by: MacroFake <[email protected]>
30ee3d3 to
00eeb31
Compare
|
@MarcoFalke thanks! Pushed. |
|
cr ACK 00eeb31 |
|
Concept ACK. |
hebasto
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ACK 00eeb31
glozow
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ACK 00eeb31, thanks for being the one to propose this
w0xlt
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ACK 00eeb31
|
RFM? |
Summary: ``` -BEGIN VERIFY SCRIPT- sed -i 's/CChainState/Chainstate/g' $(git grep -l CChainState ':(exclude)doc/release-notes*') arc lint -END VERIFY SCRIPT- ``` Co-authored-by: MacroFake <[email protected]> This is a backport of [[bitcoin/bitcoin#24513 | core#24513]] Test Plan: `ninja all check-all` Reviewers: #bitcoin_abc, sdulfari Reviewed By: #bitcoin_abc, sdulfari Differential Revision: https://reviews.bitcoinabc.org/D13126

Alright alright alright, I know: we hate refactors. We especially hate cosmetic refactors.
Nobody knows better than I that changing broad swaths of code out from under our already-abused collaborators, only to send a cascade of rebase bankruptcies, is annoying at best and sadistic at worst. And for a rename! The indignation!
But just for a second, imagine yourself. Programming
bitcoin/bitcoin, on a sandy beach beneath a lapis lazuli sky. You go to type the name of what is probably the most commonly used data structure in the codebase, and you only hit shift once.What could you do in such a world? You could do anything. The only limit is yourself.
So maybe you like the idea of this patch but really don't want to deal with rebasing. You're in luck!
Here're the commands that will bail you out of rebase bankruptcy:
Anyway I'm not sure how serious I am about this, but I figured it was worth proposing.I have decided I am very serious about this.Maybe we can have nice things every once in a while?