Re: What is missing from Git v2.0

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 09:48:53AM +0200, Philippe Vaucher wrote:
> > 
> > I agree. The "stage area" is a very important concept in git, why not
> > talk git commands that refers to it? Then we could add flags like
> > --new-files or --deleted-files for better granularity than the current
> > --all flag.
> 
> One caution: The term "stage/staged" is already a little overloaded.
> We generally use the word "staged" to refer to changes that are in the
> index, but the term "stage" as a noun generally refers to referencing
> the different versions of a file during a merge operation (cf "git
> ls-files --stage").
> 
> > I think starting by documenting the issues is a good idea, maybe on a
> > wiki, and start some draft of a proposed solution that would improve
> > in an iterative process.
> 
> And it would be nice if the issues were discussed in a way that acknowledged
> that all changes have tradeoffs, both positive and negative,

They have been discussed at length:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/197111
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/166675
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/115666
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/236127

When I say literally everbody agreed to move away from the name "index" (except
Junio and another guy) I mean it. I even composed a list:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/233469

Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Matthieu Moy, they all agreed.

> or for people for whom English might not be the first language.

People whom English is not their first language also agreed "index" is a
terrible term.

-- 
Felipe Contreras