From: Felipe Contreras Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:06:17 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] user-manual: new "getting started" section Message-ID: <94a0d4530911171506o2b08954bw4acba8ea9193e65d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <7v4ooseqvb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras writes: > >> That could be easily fixed by making explicit in the syntax that these >> are not typical refs: i.e. @stage and @work. > > The message I get from that suggestion is that the most sensible approach, > if we are going to add something from this discussion to "git diff", is to > do what you did _not_ quote from my message, which is: > >    As to --tree-vs-index counterproposal (was it a counterproposal?), >    except for that I think they are too long to type in practice and need >    to be shortened to be useful, I do not have a fundamental objection >    against it. > > IOW, this is about options, and should not be done as syntax sugar that > does a half-baked job of pretending to be refs. Sorry, I thought your only objection to STAGE and WORKTREE was that they were not clearly differentiated, and my proposal gets rid of that issue. Now I fail to see what's the problem since you didn't explain what's wrong with adding syntactic sugar. If the goal of the change is to make things more user-friendly, then I'd say "git diff HEAD @stage" is better than "git diff --tree-vs-staged HEAD". -- Felipe Contreras