1 |
On 7/25/19 4:29 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
>> |
3 |
>> * In the md5-cache entry, maybe use a common prefix like EXT_ for the |
4 |
>> extra keys in order to distinguish them from normal keys. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Yeah, I was thinking of something like '__ext_foo', or '__ext[foo]'. |
7 |
> |
8 |
|
9 |
What are the pros/cons of this? The names refer to global variables, so |
10 |
they should already be safely namespaced, right?. |
11 |
|
12 |
There is a possibility that an eclass variable name (e.g. PATCHES) could |
13 |
become standardized at a later date. If that happens, we could wind up |
14 |
with both FOO and __ext_FOO in the cache, and tools would have to figure |
15 |
out what to do with zero, one, or both present. (This has happened in |
16 |
email/web protocols when an X-Foo header was standardized.) It's not the |
17 |
end of the world, but someone would have to stop and think about it. |
18 |
|
19 |
Finally, just having the name be predictable so that I can grep '^FOO=' |
20 |
without having to care where it came from is nice. |
21 |
|
22 |
OTOH for testing, and for figuring out why these weird variables are |
23 |
showing up in my cache, the prefix would help. |