Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary

Tim Ottinger [off-list ref] writes:

So when this gets all settled, will we see a lot of tool renaming? 

I personally do not see it coming.  Any particular one you have
in mind?

Junio C Hamano wrote:

Tim Ottinger [off-list ref] writes:

 

quoted

So when this gets all settled, will we see a lot of tool renaming? 
   

I personally do not see it coming.  Any particular one you have
in mind?

 

git-update-cache for instance?
I am not sure which 'cache' commands need to be 'index' now.


-- 
                             ><>
... either 'way ahead of the game, or 'way out in left field.

Tim Ottinger [off-list ref] writes:

git-update-cache for instance?
I am not sure which 'cache' commands need to be 'index' now.

Logically you are right, but I suspect that may not fly well in
practice.  Too many of us have already got our fingers wired to
type cache, and the glossary is there to describe both cache and
index.

 

On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Tim Ottinger [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

git-update-cache for instance?
I am not sure which 'cache' commands need to be 'index' now.

Logically you are right, but I suspect that may not fly well in
practice.  Too many of us have already got our fingers wired to
type cache, and the glossary is there to describe both cache and
index.

My vote's for changing the official names, but keeping symlinks for the 
old names. As far as I know, there aren't any actual conflicts, and we 
might as well have new users pick up the logical names. I particularly 
think "git merge" would be really good to have.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*