{"thread":{"id":"2536","subject":"Deprecate --cache.* ?","startedAt":"2005-11-15T22:19:52Z","lastAt":"2005-11-16T09:18:18Z","messageCount":3,"participants":["Lukas Sandström","Junio C Hamano","Josef Weidendorfer"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"11943","messageId":"437A5F08.7020908@etek.chalmers.se","threadId":"2536","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Deprecate --cache.* ?","fromName":"Lukas Sandström","fromEmail":"lukass@etek.chalmers.se","sentAt":"2005-11-15T22:19:52Z","receivedAt":"2005-11-15T22:19:52Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"luksan@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/152281?v=4"},"body":"Currently, most of the remaining references to \"cache\" in Documantation/\nare related to the --cache.* flag of four git commands.\n\ngit-dif-*index* uses --cached to mean \"do not consider on-disk files at all\"\n\ngit-fsck-objects uses --cache to consider index entries as head nodes for \nunreachability traces.\n\ngit-ls-files --cached shows all files recorded in the index.\n\ngit-update-*index* --cacheinfo is used to place a \"fake\" entry in the index\n\ngit-update-index also has the option --index-info which does something different.\n\nMy suggestion is that these cache-references be deprecated in favor of\n--index, --in-index, --index-only, --insert-index, or something along those lines.\n\nBackward compability could be ensured by having both versions of the flags\naround for a while and issuing a warning when the old form is used.\n\nGood idea? Bad? Stupid? Do we want to keep \"cache\" around?\n"},{"id":"11994","messageId":"7vsltxazyf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","threadId":"2536","inReplyTo":"437A5F08.7020908@etek.chalmers.se","subject":"Re: Deprecate --cache.* ?","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"junkio@cox.net","sentAt":"2005-11-16T06:06:48Z","receivedAt":"2005-11-16T06:06:48Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Lukas Sandström <lukass@etek.chalmers.se> writes:\n\n> Backward compability could be ensured by having both versions of the flags\n> around for a while and issuing a warning when the old form is used.\n>\n> Good idea? Bad? Stupid? Do we want to keep \"cache\" around?\n\nI agree that may be a logical move, with proper b/c slack, but I\nam not _so_ enthused about this...\n"},{"id":"12004","messageId":"200511161018.19374.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de","threadId":"2536","inReplyTo":"7vsltxazyf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net","subject":"Re: Deprecate --cache.* ?","fromName":"Josef Weidendorfer","fromEmail":"josef.weidendorfer@gmx.de","sentAt":"2005-11-16T09:18:18Z","receivedAt":"2005-11-16T09:18:18Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"josef.weidendorfer@gmx.de","avatar":null},"body":"On Wednesday 16 November 2005 07:06, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Lukas Sandström <lukass@etek.chalmers.se> writes:\n> \n> > Backward compability could be ensured by having both versions of the flags\n> > around for a while and issuing a warning when the old form is used.\n> >\n> > Good idea? Bad? Stupid? Do we want to keep \"cache\" around?\n> \n> I agree that may be a logical move, with proper b/c slack, but I\n> am not _so_ enthused about this...\n\nProbably, as your fingers are trained. I just tried it to write 10\ntimes as fast as possible: cache, and afterwards index; and writing\ncache *is* faster ;-)\n\nBut for someone new to git, these options must be totally confusing\nand coming out of nowhere. Not that I use these often - I am a\nCogito user.\n\nPractically, the opinion of people using these options often should\ncount, as it will be inconvenient for them. Rare users can look up\nthe man page.\n\nJosef\n"}]}