Re: [1.8.0] use 'stage' term consistently

4 messages, 4 authors, 2016-06-15 · open the first message on its own page

Re: [1.8.0] use 'stage' term consistently

From: Matthieu Moy <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:53:45

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
Proposal:

Avoid the terms 'cache' and 'index' in favor of 'stage'.
I completely agree that something needs to be done.

But there are at least two points that were raised during the previous
discussions that need to be taken into account:

* Currenly, "index" and "staging area" are not exactly synonyms. When
  used with "git add" and "git commit" (without -a), the index is the
  staging area for the next commit. But when used by "git merge", the
  index is more a "merging area".

* There is currently a distinction in the meaning of --cached and
  --index. See the end of Documentation/gitcli.txt. I think it is good
  to have this distinction, but I agree that the wording of current
  option name is wrong (i.e. without having read gitcli.txt, I don't
  think anyone could have guessed this distinction). Perhaps something
  like --staged-only/--staged-too?

About the name, an alternative to "stage" was suggested earlier:
"precommit". If we were to rewrite Git from scratch, I'd argue in favor
of this one, which is really easy to understand, especially for
non-native (you really need to know what a "commit" is to use Git, and
then infering the meaning of precommit is easy). But we probably have
already a too long history of changing the name, so introducing yet
another one is perhaps counter-productive. I don't know.

-- 
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

Re: [1.8.0] use 'stage' term consistently

From: Felipe Contreras <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:53:45

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Matthieu Moy
[off-list ref] wrote:
Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:
* Currenly, "index" and "staging area" are not exactly synonyms. When
 used with "git add" and "git commit" (without -a), the index is the
 staging area for the next commit. But when used by "git merge", the
 index is more a "merging area".
And what is the difference? The result of the 'merging area' is still a commit.
About the name, an alternative to "stage" was suggested earlier:
"precommit". If we were to rewrite Git from scratch, I'd argue in favor
of this one, which is really easy to understand, especially for
non-native (you really need to know what a "commit" is to use Git, and
then infering the meaning of precommit is easy). But we probably have
already a too long history of changing the name, so introducing yet
another one is perhaps counter-productive. I don't know.
I don't know, precommit is not an English word, and it was discussed
before, but not many people vouched for it.

Plus, it's not already widely used in the interwebs documentation as
staging area is.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras

Re: [1.8.0] use 'stage' term consistently

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:53:45

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 11:16 PM, Felipe Contreras
[off-list ref] wrote:
I don't know, precommit is not an English word, and it was discussed
before, but not many people vouched for it.
FWIW in the Icelandic translation I translated "index/stage" to the
equivalent of "the commit area".

Re: [1.8.0] use 'stage' term consistently

From: Thiago Farina <hidden>
Date: 2016-06-15 22:53:50

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 7:26 AM, Matthieu Moy
[off-list ref] wrote:
About the name, an alternative to "stage" was suggested earlier:
"precommit"
Thanks! That was the first that explained to me what cache, index, and
stage was talking about. +1 from me (not that count much).
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help