Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary
- From
Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
- Date
- Sep 2, 2005, 18:09 UTC
- Message-ID
- <Pine.LNX.4.63.0509021358000.23242@iabervon.org>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vek88tib4.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> Tim Ottinger <tottinge@progeny.com> writes: > > > git-update-cache for instance? > > I am not sure which 'cache' commands need to be 'index' now. > > Logically you are right, but I suspect that may not fly well in > practice. Too many of us have already got our fingers wired to > type cache, and the glossary is there to describe both cache and > index.
My vote's for changing the official names, but keeping symlinks for the old names. As far as I know, there aren't any actual conflicts, and we might as well have new users pick up the logical names. I particularly think "git merge" would be really good to have.
-Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank*