The renaming is a good idea even without any change in the feature.
Naming functions after what their result is used _for_ is never a good
idea, and we should name them after what they do.
Does it still make sense to pass "keep_subject" to the function? After
all what it does is to retain "[PATCH.." prefix that is useless for the
purpose of making each patch easily identifiable. Because people almost
always use patch acceptance tools in non-keep mode to strip the
"[PATCH..]" prefix when creating the commits these days anyway, it may
make more sense to lose the parameter altogether and simplify the
processing.
Asterisk sticks to the variable name, not type name.
I also wonder if it makes sense to move what this function does into a
user format; especially the logic that sanitizes the oneline string into
filename friendly one may be something Porcelains may want an access to
from outside.
IOW, you can introduce a new format specifier (say, "%f") to
format_commit_message() and the implemention of get_patch_filename() would
just prepare a strbuf and call format_commit_message() on it, no?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html