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

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Apr 5, 2009, 22:35 UTC
Message-ID: <94a0d4530904051535v8bd901fsedecdf61bc4acb33@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200904052358.53028.markus.heidelberg@web.de>

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:58 AM, Markus Heidelberg <markus.heidelberg@web.de> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

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

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; 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"?

-- 
Felipe Contreras