Re: Officially start moving to the term 'staging area'

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > It has been discussed many times in the past that 'index' is not an
> > appropriate description for what the high-level user does with it, and
> > it has been agreed that 'staging area' is the best term.
> 
> Thanks for working on this. No time for a really detailed review, but a
> few remarks.
> 
> > The term 'staging area' is more intuitive [...]
> >
> > The first step in moving Git towards this term, is first to add --stage
> > options for every command that uses --index or --cache.
> 
> These explanations make sense. I think it would be better to put part of
> it in commit messages, so that future contributors can "git blame" the
> doc/implem of these --stage and find them (i.e. avoid the
> misunderstanding that occured with "git stage" command which was
> proposed for removal).

> > Moreover, the --stage and --work
> 
> --work alone sounds weird. At least to me, it does not immediately imply
> "working tree". It is tempting to call the option --work-tree, but git
> already has a global option with that name (git --work-tree=foo bar).

> > reset', and after these options are added, the complicated table to
> > explain the different behaviors between --soft, --mixed, and --hard
> > becomes so simple it's not needed any more:
> 
> I didn't understand the table, but yes, the --soft, --mixed, and --hard
> is terrible, I need to read the doc whenever I do something non-trivial
> with reset :-(.