Hello,
The other day I fell on this post:
http://raflabs.com/blogs/silence-is-foo/2011/04/07/staging-area-index-cache-git/
I thought it made some good points about git being kinda confusing,
for example sentences like "Changed but not updated" in git status
could use a better sentence like "Changed but not in the index". Maybe
--cached could have an alias like --index-only for things to be more
intuitive as well.
`git rm --index-only somefile` is more understandable than `git rm
--cached somefile` imho.
Also, in ls-files, --stage could maybe use an alias like --contents
for it to be more self-explanatory.
Philippe
p.s: not saying we should absolutly do what I suggest, but rather
start a discussion about how to make git's terminology more intuitive
and self-explanatory.
Hi Philippe,
Philippe Vaucher wrote:
http://raflabs.com/blogs/silence-is-foo/2011/04/07/staging-area-index-cache-git/
I thought it made some good points about git being kinda confusing,
for example sentences like "Changed but not updated" in git status
could use a better sentence like "Changed but not in the index".
Sounds reasonable (well, with some more precise wording to reflect
that this means "changed but not all changes are reflected in the
index").
Maybe
--cached could have an alias like --index-only for things to be more
intuitive as well.
`git rm --index-only somefile` is more understandable than `git rm
--cached somefile` imho.
Also, in ls-files, --stage could maybe use an alias like --contents
for it to be more self-explanatory.
These suggestions also seem sane. Please send patches
(Documentation/SubmittingPatches explains how) so we can refine them
and fix this.
Thanks much,
Jonathan
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 05:16:27PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
quoted
http://raflabs.com/blogs/silence-is-foo/2011/04/07/staging-area-index-cache-git/
I thought it made some good points about git being kinda confusing,
for example sentences like "Changed but not updated" in git status
could use a better sentence like "Changed but not in the index".
Sounds reasonable (well, with some more precise wording to reflect
that this means "changed but not all changes are reflected in the
index").
Didn't we fix this already in 8009d83 (Better "Changed but not updated"
message in git-status, 2010-11-02)? Since v1.7.4, "git status" has
"Changes not staged for commit".
-Peff
Didn't we fix this already in 8009d83 (Better "Changed but not updated"
message in git-status, 2010-11-02)? Since v1.7.4, "git status" has
"Changes not staged for commit".
Yes, and the new text is fine for me.
Philippe