{"thread":{"id":"28064","subject":"Suggestions to make git easier to understand","startedAt":"2011-08-11T07:48:37Z","lastAt":"2011-08-15T10:15:45Z","messageCount":6,"participants":["Philippe Vaucher","Jonathan Nieder","Junio C Hamano","Jeff King"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"173263","messageId":"CAGK7Mr5T4-DBK7rXeH-1=SNu5HBOEkLBW=CAh5Lhf7oHKjFAiw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"28064","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Suggestions to make git easier to understand","fromName":"Philippe Vaucher","fromEmail":"philippe.vaucher@gmail.com","sentAt":"2011-08-11T07:48:37Z","receivedAt":"2011-08-11T07:48:37Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"philippe.vaucher@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Hello,\n\nThe other day I fell on this post:\n\nhttp://raflabs.com/blogs/silence-is-foo/2011/04/07/staging-area-index-cache-git/\n\nI thought it made some good points about git being kinda confusing,\nfor example sentences like \"Changed but not updated\" in git status\ncould use a better sentence like \"Changed but not in the index\". Maybe\n--cached could have an alias like --index-only for things to be more\nintuitive as well.\n\n`git rm --index-only somefile` is more understandable than `git rm\n--cached somefile` imho.\n\nAlso, in ls-files, --stage could maybe use an alias like --contents\nfor it to be more self-explanatory.\n\nPhilippe\n\np.s: not saying we should absolutly do what I suggest, but rather\nstart a discussion about how to make git's terminology more intuitive\nand self-explanatory.\n"},{"id":"173320","messageId":"20110811221627.GA32005@elie.gateway.2wire.net","threadId":"28064","inReplyTo":"CAGK7Mr5T4-DBK7rXeH-1=SNu5HBOEkLBW=CAh5Lhf7oHKjFAiw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Suggestions to make git easier to understand","fromName":"Jonathan Nieder","fromEmail":"jrnieder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2011-08-11T22:16:27Z","receivedAt":"2011-08-11T22:16:27Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jrnieder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/281595?v=4"},"body":"Hi Philippe,\n\nPhilippe Vaucher wrote:\n\n> http://raflabs.com/blogs/silence-is-foo/2011/04/07/staging-area-index-cache-git/\n>\n> I thought it made some good points about git being kinda confusing,\n> for example sentences like \"Changed but not updated\" in git status\n> could use a better sentence like \"Changed but not in the index\".\n\nSounds reasonable (well, with some more precise wording to reflect\nthat this means \"changed but not all changes are reflected in the\nindex\").\n\n> Maybe\n> --cached could have an alias like --index-only for things to be more\n> intuitive as well.\n> \n> `git rm --index-only somefile` is more understandable than `git rm\n> --cached somefile` imho.\n> \n> Also, in ls-files, --stage could maybe use an alias like --contents\n> for it to be more self-explanatory.\n\nThese suggestions also seem sane.  Please send patches\n(Documentation/SubmittingPatches explains how) so we can refine them\nand fix this.\n\nThanks much,\nJonathan\n"},{"id":"173322","messageId":"7vmxffpo8e.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","threadId":"28064","inReplyTo":"20110811221627.GA32005@elie.gateway.2wire.net","subject":"Re: Suggestions to make git easier to understand","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2011-08-11T22:39:13Z","receivedAt":"2011-08-11T22:39:13Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:\n\n>> Maybe\n>> --cached could have an alias like --index-only for things to be more\n>> intuitive as well.\n>> \n>> `git rm --index-only somefile` is more understandable than `git rm\n>> --cached somefile` imho.\n>> \n>> Also, in ls-files, --stage could maybe use an alias like --contents\n>> for it to be more self-explanatory.\n>\n> These suggestions also seem sane.\n\nThe --index-only synonym was throwed around in a handful of discussions in\nthe past. It probably would not hurt, I would say.\n\nI do not think \"ls-files --contents\" makes things any better, though.\nUntil a new user encounters a conflicted state, it might look like that\nthe primary point of \"ls-files -s\" is to show the object names, but it\nalso is important that it shows the stage numbers.\n"},{"id":"173323","messageId":"20110811230807.GA5608@elie.gateway.2wire.net","threadId":"28064","inReplyTo":"7vmxffpo8e.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org","subject":"Re: Suggestions to make git easier to understand","fromName":"Jonathan Nieder","fromEmail":"jrnieder@gmail.com","sentAt":"2011-08-11T23:08:08Z","receivedAt":"2011-08-11T23:08:08Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jrnieder@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/281595?v=4"},"body":"Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> I do not think \"ls-files --contents\" makes things any better, though.\n> Until a new user encounters a conflicted state, it might look like that\n> the primary point of \"ls-files -s\" is to show the object names, but it\n> also is important that it shows the stage numbers.\n\nYes, sloppy of me.  I should have said \"the intent of these\nsuggestions seems reasonable, and I believe that with minimal tweaking\nthey would all lead to good things\".\n\nIn the case of \"ls-files -s\", I suspect what would be most useful is\na new porcelain \"git ls --merge\", building on Duy's work[*].\n\n[*] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/166405/focus=166415\n"},{"id":"173429","messageId":"20110812222626.GA7079@sigill.intra.peff.net","threadId":"28064","inReplyTo":"20110811221627.GA32005@elie.gateway.2wire.net","subject":"Re: Suggestions to make git easier to understand","fromName":"Jeff King","fromEmail":"peff@peff.net","sentAt":"2011-08-12T22:26:27Z","receivedAt":"2011-08-12T22:26:27Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"peff@peff.net","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45925?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 05:16:27PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote:\n\n> > http://raflabs.com/blogs/silence-is-foo/2011/04/07/staging-area-index-cache-git/\n> >\n> > I thought it made some good points about git being kinda confusing,\n> > for example sentences like \"Changed but not updated\" in git status\n> > could use a better sentence like \"Changed but not in the index\".\n> \n> Sounds reasonable (well, with some more precise wording to reflect\n> that this means \"changed but not all changes are reflected in the\n> index\").\n\nDidn't we fix this already in 8009d83 (Better \"Changed but not updated\"\nmessage in git-status, 2010-11-02)? Since v1.7.4, \"git status\" has\n\"Changes not staged for commit\".\n\n-Peff\n"},{"id":"173530","messageId":"CAGK7Mr4ZbnHPc7Yzim4D=ABeXOCYrP-4Mc6Z-4mH+u9ZKSEBLQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"28064","inReplyTo":"20110812222626.GA7079@sigill.intra.peff.net","subject":"Re: Suggestions to make git easier to understand","fromName":"Philippe Vaucher","fromEmail":"philippe.vaucher@gmail.com","sentAt":"2011-08-15T10:15:45Z","receivedAt":"2011-08-15T10:15:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"philippe.vaucher@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"> Didn't we fix this already in 8009d83 (Better \"Changed but not updated\"\n> message in git-status, 2010-11-02)? Since v1.7.4, \"git status\" has\n> \"Changes not staged for commit\".\n\nYes, and the new text is fine for me.\n\nPhilippe\n"}]}