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

From: Hilco Wijbenga <hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com>
Date: Sep 6, 2013, 17:14 UTC
Message-ID: <CAE1pOi1epmm2ESb0ocAhPFCfs6LVctFOXnt2vwPNp2Lxuq2=+w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACSwcnR+rHVDVHu8rwATU+VbGE-9zP=xB8Y-udPGoP6KvhprCA@mail.gmail.com>

On 6 September 2013 08:45, Ping Yin <pkufranky@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 2:08 PM, William Swanson <swansontec@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Felipe Contreras
>> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> I realize Git is not a democracy, but if the vote of a humble user
>> counts for anything, I agree that "index" is a terrible name.
>
> +1 for staging area

As yet another "just a user", I'd like to add my enthusiastic support for "to stage" and "staging area".

I'm guessing that a lot of Git devs/long time users are simply so used to its interface that they may not see its sharp corners any more. :-) That's quite natural and bound to happen to anyone who works with a particular tool for a long time. Still, (e.g.) "git add -A" removing files (as useful as that is) is just weird. And, in general, the user should not need to know how Git is implemented.

Show 5 quoted lines

>> I was very excited when Felipe first started this thread, since I
>> thought Git might finally fix one of it's biggest long-standing
>> usability problems.
>
> the same feeling.

Ditto. :-)