Re: Consistent terminology: cached/staged/index
- From
Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org>
- Date
- Feb 14, 2011, 11:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <buod3muswq7.fsf@dhlpc061.dev.necel.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <4D5906FD.7030502@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> Short options should really not be "wasted" easily. "-s" named after "to > stage" is really problematic, as outlined in this thread.
Er, but the point is that this is _such_ a common operation, that a short option for it would not be "wasted" at all. [The whole concept of "wasting" short options doesn't even make sense unless you're willing to then use the resulting "preserved" options eventually...]
Indeed it seems a little weird that there's not one for this already, given how common short options are in git generally, often for far less useful options than --cached/--staged; I can only guess that the reason is basically historical accident.
As for the exact letter chosen, "-s" seems perfectly fine to me. Short options do not need to be "perfect" to be useful, and the connection with --staged is a perfectly plausible memory aid for that short period during which people memorize them.
-Miles
-- The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. --Albert Einstein