Re: Consistent terminology: cached/staged/index
- From
Piotr Krukowiecki <piotr.krukowiecki@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 15, 2011, 18:15 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTim3g15GRZUhrq4=Bs28JHr3M53U_QavtyUxsh7L@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20110214231920.GA24814@elie>
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Hi again, > > Piotr Krukowiecki wrote: >> --refresh:: >> Don't add the file(s), but only refresh their stat() >> - information in the index. >> + information in the staging area. > > git add/update-index --refresh are precisely meant for _not_ changing > the content of the next commit, so this particular change seems > confusing.
If there is no staging - no commit, then you're right. But then you don't have to mention index at all:
--refresh:: Don't add the file(s), but only refresh their stat() information.
I completely agree with Pete Harlan - for normal user git internals are not relevant - index is just part of git. How or where the stat information is refreshed does not matter.
In the same way you don't write that it's done by function refresh_index().
> Hoping that is clearer. Thanks for caring. > Jonathan
Thanks for explanation.
-- Piotrek