Re: [RFC/PATCH 0/2] New 'stage' command

From: Markus Heidelberg <markus.heidelberg@web.de>
Date: Apr 5, 2009, 23:17 UTC
Message-ID: <200904060117.24810.markus.heidelberg@web.de>
In-Reply-To: <94a0d4530904051535v8bd901fsedecdf61bc4acb33@mail.gmail.com>

Felipe Contreras, 06.04.2009:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Markus Heidelberg
> <markus.heidelberg@web.de> wrote:
> > Felipe Contreras, 05.04.2009:
> >> For example 'git stage diff' is more natural (at least to me) than 'git diff
> >> --cached', same goes for 'git stage rm foo.c' vs 'git rm --cached foo.c'.
> >
> > Not for me. If I want to GET a diff, I want to use a command "diff", so
> > "git diff" is more obvious.
> > The next step is to say WHAT exactly to diff. Therefor options to the
> > "diff" command are more logically to me from a hierarchic POV. And here
> > I don't think options like "--cached" or "sha1..sha2", despite having
> > different style, make any difference.
> 
> Well, it's a matter of preference, and you would not loose the option
> to do it the way you like.

I know, but that's not the topic.

> But actually, "git diff --cached" is a
> different action; you can't do "git diff --cached HEAD^.." for
> example.

And I neither could I do "git stage diff HEAD^.."

Show 6 quoted lines

> Consider "git rm foo.c" vs "git rm --cached foo.c"... both commands
> are removing a file, the only difference is that one is removing from
> the staging area while the other is removing it from the working
> directory. Now think about "git branch -d bar", following the "first I
> specify the action, and then the object" thinking, would it make sense
> to have "git rm --branch bar"? Probably not;

Right, the argumentation with first the action doesn't fly any more. I guess it has to be considered what makes sense to have as command. "rm" (not git-rm) is such a well-known tool for deleting files so it probably doesn't make sense to have a command git-rm-files instead.

> if you want to do stuff
> with branches, you use "git branch", similarly, if you want to do
> stuff with the staging area, why not use "git stage"?

So git-diff for working with diffs, git-branch for working with branches and git-rm/git-add for working on file level makes sense for me. Whether the a command can work with both the working tree and the index doesn't seem to make a difference for me.

Markus