D2010: check-commit: allow foo_bar naming in functions

[martinvonz (Martin von Zweigbergk)]

martinvonz added a comment.


  In https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2010#89436, @indygreg wrote:
  
  > If we loosen the naming requirement, I think a good convention would be to have new files use the *modern* convention and for existing code/files to generally stick to the old convention.
  >
  > That being said, if someone were to introduce a new function into an existing file and wanted to use the modern names, I wouldn't mind.
  >
  > I would not like to see global, API breaking rewrites for the sake of rewrites. If we wanted to do a global search and replace on variables inside functions, I'd be OK with that (that won't break API compat). But I'm in no rush to do it.
  >
  > I would also not like to see patches introducing mixed naming conventions within functions. I think we should try to keep things consistent at definitely the function level and possibly the file level.
  
  
  Sounds good to me. As I said before, we don't seem to have that many functions that have many words in their name, so I don't think the inconsistency would be very noticeable anyway.

REPOSITORY
  rHG Mercurial

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phab.mercurial-scm.org/D2010

To: indygreg, #hg-reviewers, pulkit, durin42
Cc: martinvonz, av6, yuja, durin42, pulkit, mercurial-devel