From: Piotr Krukowiecki <piotr.krukowiecki@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:15:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Consistent terminology: cached/staged/index
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:
> 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