Re: Consistent terminology: cached/staged/index
- From
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
- Date
- Mar 5, 2011, 05:00 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20110305050030.GC22976@elie>
- In-Reply-To
- <AANLkTimX3n5PNdK9YpA92SQM7G-WAiC1aPP7qJ-UEudq@mail.gmail.com>
Miles Bader wrote:
> I don't why so many people seem to be trying so hard to come with > alternatives to "staged" and "staging area", when the latter are > actually quite good; so far all the suggestions have been much more > awkward and less intuitive.
*nod* Actually, "staging area" is intuitive on first reading and "stage" less so to me, while the alternatives tend to be more confusing for what it's worth.
I think this thread has outlived its usefulness. Could people with concrete proposals (e.g., "the description of 'git add' is confusing in such-and-such way; this rewording makes it clearer", or "the glossary does not describe the staging area very well; how about this description") please start new threads?
Thanks, Jonathan