git.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Deprecate --cache.* ?
@ 2005-11-15 22:19 Lukas Sandström
  2005-11-16  6:06 ` Junio C Hamano
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Lukas Sandström @ 2005-11-15 22:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: git; +Cc: Junio C Hamano

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?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Deprecate --cache.* ?
  2005-11-15 22:19 Deprecate --cache.* ? Lukas Sandström
@ 2005-11-16  6:06 ` Junio C Hamano
  2005-11-16  9:18   ` Josef Weidendorfer
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2005-11-16  6:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Lukas Sandström; +Cc: git

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...

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

* Re: Deprecate --cache.* ?
  2005-11-16  6:06 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2005-11-16  9:18   ` Josef Weidendorfer
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Josef Weidendorfer @ 2005-11-16  9:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: git

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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2005-11-16  9:18 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2005-11-15 22:19 Deprecate --cache.* ? Lukas Sandström
2005-11-16  6:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2005-11-16  9:18   ` Josef Weidendorfer

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).