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

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2013, 20:36 UTC
Message-ID: <CAMP44s3m_7UffHfie8=_izPt5tCw+9SXPa4sqoHuphuVyTHqcw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <521FA90A.9040903@web.de>

On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 3:03 PM, René Scharfe <l.s.r@web.de> wrote:

Show 25 quoted lines

> Am 29.08.2013 20:57, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
>>
>> Matthieu Moy wrote:
>>
>>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>> Moreover, the --stage and --work
>>>
>>>
>>> --work alone sounds weird. At least to me, it does not immediately imply
>>> "working tree". It is tempting to call the option --work-tree, but git
>>> already has a global option with that name (git --work-tree=foo bar).
>>
>>
>> Yes, --work sounds weird, but so does --cherry. I thought about --wt, but
>> I
>> felt --work was more understandable, and --work-tree doesn't really give
>> much
>> more value, except more characters to type =/
>
>
> If you have a --work-tree option then parseopt accepts --work as well,
> unless it's ambiguous, i.e. another option starts with --work, too.  So you
> can have a descriptive, extra-long option and type just a few characters at
> the same time.

Right, but what do we use in the documentation? Writing --work-tree in the 'git reset' table for example would be rather ugly. I'm fine with --work-tree, but I think it would be weird to have short-hands in the documentation, although not entirely bad.

-- 
Felipe Contreras