From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:25:57 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] added a built-in alias for 'stage' to the 'add' command
Message-ID: <20081201182557.GA24443@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <20081201172902.GA41963@agadorsparticus>

On Mon, Dec 01, 2008 at 09:29:02AM -0800, Scott Chacon wrote:

> this comes from conversation at the GitTogether where we thought it would
> be helpful to be able to teach people to 'stage' files because it tends
> to cause confusion when told that they have to keep 'add'ing them.
> 
> This continues the movement to start referring to the index as a
> staging area (eg: the --staged alias to 'git diff'). Also added a
> doc file for 'git stage' that basically points to the docs for
> 'git add'.

FWIW, I think this is a step in the right direction. Or at least if it's
the wrong direction, I don't think we're actually _hurting_ anybody,
since we're not changing existing commands.

Out of curiosity, have you had any experiences referring to this as "git
stage" (maybe just by setting a per-user alias) with new users?

> +SYNOPSIS
> +--------
> +[verse]
> +'git stage' [-n] [-v] [--force | -f] [--interactive | -i] [--patch | -p]
> +	  [--all | [--update | -u]] [--intent-to-add | -N]
> +	  [--refresh] [--ignore-errors] [--] <filepattern>...

It seems like this might get stale with respect to git-add(1). Since
we're not hiding the fact that this is really an alias for "add", maybe
it would be better to just have "git stage [options] [--]
<filepattern>" (or maybe even something simpler).

-Peff