> > > The other thing I noticed is that we > > > don't seem to be consistent in naming functions in these files. For > > > example, shall we make all exposed functions follow camel case (like > > > InitializeLogRepWorker) and static functions follow _ style (like > > > run_apply_worker) or the other possibility is to use _ style for all > > > functions except may be the entry functions like ApplyWorkerMain()? I > > > don't know if there is already a pattern but if not then let's form it > > > now, so that code looks consistent. > > > > > > > +1 for using some consistent rule, but I think this may result in > > *many* changes, so it would be safer to itemize all the changes first, > > just to make sure everybody is OK with it first before updating > > everything. > > > > Fair enough. We can do that as a first patch and then work on the > refactoring patch to avoid introducing more inconsistencies or we can > do the refactoring patch first but keep all the new function names to > follow _ style. >
Fixing the naming inconsistency will be more far-reaching than just a few functions affected by these "reuse" patches. There are plenty of existing functions already inconsistently named in the HEAD code. So perhaps this topic should be moved to a separate thread?
+1 for moving it to a separate thread. This is not something particularly introduced by this patch.