From: Jeff King Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:21:01 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] git add --intent-to-add: fix removal of cached emptiness Message-ID: <20081130192101.GD10981@coredump.intra.peff.net> In-Reply-To: On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 04:38:12PM +0100, Sverre Rabbelier wrote: > On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 04:55, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > This uses the extended index flag mechanism introduced earlier to mark > > the entries added to the index via "git add -N" with CE_INTENT_TO_ADD. > > Is 'intent' [0] used properly here? Should it not be 'intend' [1]? > > [0] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intent > [1] http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/intend I think it's fine. The flags describe the entry, not the user (e.g., CE_VALID). So the entry does not _intend_ to add anything, but rather there exists _intent_ to add this entry (you might also say the entry is "_intended_ to be added", but that is getting a bit clunky). -Peff