# Deprecate --cache.* ?

3 messages from 2005-11-15 to 2005-11-16. Participants: Lukas Sandström, Junio C Hamano, Josef Weidendorfer.
Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/2536

## Lukas Sandström, 2005-11-15 22:19

Subject: Deprecate --cache.* ?
Message-ID: <437A5F08.7020908@etek.chalmers.se>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/437A5F08.7020908%40etek.chalmers.se

```
Currently, most of the remaining references to "cache" in Documantation/
are related to the --cache.* flag of four git commands.

git-dif-*index* uses --cached to mean "do not consider on-disk files at all"

git-fsck-objects uses --cache to consider index entries as head nodes for 
unreachability traces.

git-ls-files --cached shows all files recorded in the index.

git-update-*index* --cacheinfo is used to place a "fake" entry in the index

git-update-index also has the option --index-info which does something different.

My suggestion is that these cache-references be deprecated in favor of
--index, --in-index, --index-only, --insert-index, or something along those lines.

Backward compability could be ensured by having both versions of the flags
around for a while and issuing a warning when the old form is used.

Good idea? Bad? Stupid? Do we want to keep "cache" around?

```

## Junio C Hamano, 2005-11-16 06:06

Subject: Re: Deprecate --cache.* ?
Message-ID: <7vsltxazyf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7vsltxazyf.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net
In-Reply-To: <437A5F08.7020908@etek.chalmers.se>

```
Lukas Sandström <lukass@etek.chalmers.se> writes:

> Backward compability could be ensured by having both versions of the flags
> around for a while and issuing a warning when the old form is used.
>
> Good idea? Bad? Stupid? Do we want to keep "cache" around?

I agree that may be a logical move, with proper b/c slack, but I
am not _so_ enthused about this...

```

## Josef Weidendorfer, 2005-11-16 09:18

Subject: Re: Deprecate --cache.* ?
Message-ID: <200511161018.19374.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de>
URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/200511161018.19374.Josef.Weidendorfer%40gmx.de
In-Reply-To: <7vsltxazyf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

```
On Wednesday 16 November 2005 07:06, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Lukas Sandström <lukass@etek.chalmers.se> writes:
> 
> > Backward compability could be ensured by having both versions of the flags
> > around for a while and issuing a warning when the old form is used.
> >
> > Good idea? Bad? Stupid? Do we want to keep "cache" around?
> 
> I agree that may be a logical move, with proper b/c slack, but I
> am not _so_ enthused about this...

Probably, as your fingers are trained. I just tried it to write 10
times as fast as possible: cache, and afterwards index; and writing
cache *is* faster ;-)

But for someone new to git, these options must be totally confusing
and coming out of nowhere. Not that I use these often - I am a
Cogito user.

Practically, the opinion of people using these options often should
count, as it will be inconvenient for them. Rare users can look up
the man page.

Josef

```