Recent documentation patches, and an RFC on terminology

Recent documentation patches, and an RFC on terminology

[Eric Raymond]

I just sent two documentation patches to the list in quick succession.
In case they arrive out of order: the first, smaller one - modifying
only the git-status documentation - should be applied before the 
second one (distinguishing between "staging area" and "index"
throughout the documentation).

We may have an opportunity to improve on the term "staging area".  As
I reflect on it, I think replacing that with the term "depot" might
not be a bad idea.  In English this word has the general sense of
"warehouse", and the more specialized connotation of a place where
freight is temporarily held for transshipment, or where military
supplies and recruits are mustered before field deployment.  That is,
a depot is a particular kind of staging area.

Since these terms are so similar, why change?

One reason is that --depot would be a shorter and more graceful choice 
than --staging-area as a long-form option.  It has the same letter
count as "index", so changing command and option names to use it 
wouldn't add more typing.

Another reason is that "depot" is slightly more distant from normal
English vocabulary than "staging area" is.  When you need a word to 
co-opt as a technical term of art, thast's an advantage; it reduces 
the chances of collisions between term-of-art and normal usages.

If this proposal is accepted, I can very easly generate a patch to
implement it.  Teasing apart "index" from "staging area" was actual 
work, but now that the distinction has been made replacing the latter
would be trivial.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

The politician attempts to remedy the evil by increasing the very thing
that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder.
	-- Frederick Bastiat

Re: Recent documentation patches, and an RFC on terminology

[Björn Steinbrink]

On 2010.04.23 17:54:48 -0400, Eric Raymond wrote:
> We may have an opportunity to improve on the term "staging area".  As
> I reflect on it, I think replacing that with the term "depot" might
> not be a bad idea.

IIRC Perforce already uses the term "depot" for something that's not
quite git's index (your other mail didn't make it to me yet, so I
couldn't quickly look up how you differentiate between the "staging
area" and the index). There have been people in #git that used the term
"depot", and till now I simply guessed that they meant "repository", and
that seemed to fit. Introducing git's own definition of "depot" will
probably cause confusion when talking to (former) perforce users, so I'd
rather avoid that term.

Björn

Re: Recent documentation patches, and an RFC on terminology

[Eric Raymond]

Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>:
>                   (your other mail didn't make it to me yet, so I
> couldn't quickly look up how you differentiate between the "staging
> area" and the index).

*Groan*...is the Great Galactic Ghoul randomly eating my patch submissions
again? I'll check the archives...

Basically, I changed the docs to use "staging area" when talking about 
workflow and "index" only when describing implementation.
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

Re: Recent documentation patches, and an RFC on terminology

[Nicolas Pitre]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 551 bytes --]

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Eric Raymond wrote:

> Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>:
> >                   (your other mail didn't make it to me yet, so I
> > couldn't quickly look up how you differentiate between the "staging
> > area" and the index).
> 
> *Groan*...is the Great Galactic Ghoul randomly eating my patch submissions
> again? I'll check the archives...
> 
> Basically, I changed the docs to use "staging area" when talking about 
> workflow and "index" only when describing implementation.

If so that should be a good thing.


Nicolas

Re: Recent documentation patches, and an RFC on terminology

[Junio C Hamano]

Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net> writes:

> On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Eric Raymond wrote:
>
>> Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>:
>> >                   (your other mail didn't make it to me yet, so I
>> > couldn't quickly look up how you differentiate between the "staging
>> > area" and the index).
>> 
>> *Groan*...is the Great Galactic Ghoul randomly eating my patch submissions
>> again? I'll check the archives...
>> 
>> Basically, I changed the docs to use "staging area" when talking about 
>> workflow and "index" only when describing implementation.
>
> If so that should be a good thing.

Do you mean that Ghoul did a good thing to eat such a change?

Re: Recent documentation patches, and an RFC on terminology

[Nicolas Pitre]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 848 bytes --]

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Eric Raymond wrote:
> >
> >> Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>:
> >> >                   (your other mail didn't make it to me yet, so I
> >> > couldn't quickly look up how you differentiate between the "staging
> >> > area" and the index).
> >> 
> >> *Groan*...is the Great Galactic Ghoul randomly eating my patch submissions
> >> again? I'll check the archives...
> >> 
> >> Basically, I changed the docs to use "staging area" when talking about 
> >> workflow and "index" only when describing implementation.
> >
> > If so that should be a good thing.
> 
> Do you mean that Ghoul did a good thing to eat such a change?

:-)

I meant that the proposed change to the doc as described above should be 
a good change.


Nicolas

Re: Recent documentation patches, and an RFC on terminology

[Adam Brewster]

On 4/23/10, Eric Raymond <esr@snark.thyrsus.com> wrote:
> I just sent two documentation patches to the list in quick succession.
> In case they arrive out of order: the first, smaller one - modifying
> only the git-status documentation - should be applied before the
> second one (distinguishing between "staging area" and "index"
> throughout the documentation).
>

I didn't get the patch which distinguishes index vs. staging area, but
I did get 'Typo fixes and minor cleanups for the big "index"/"staging
area patch', so I can see some of what it did.

Based on my limited view, I think it makes things more confusing. I'd
rather see references to the index be replaced with "the staging area
(a.k.a. the index)" than long winded explanations like "the index is
the structure used to store the content of the staging area" or "the
staging area used to be called the index".

> We may have an opportunity to improve on the term "staging area".  As
> I reflect on it, I think replacing that with the term "depot" might
> not be a bad idea.  In English this word has the general sense of
> "warehouse", and the more specialized connotation of a place where
> freight is temporarily held for transshipment, or where military
> supplies and recruits are mustered before field deployment.  That is,
> a depot is a particular kind of staging area.
>

To me, "depot" has connotations of transportation.  A depot is a place
to catch a train or a bus.

Staging area describes exactly how we use the index.  An area where
things are staged (prepared) to be committed.

> Since these terms are so similar, why change?
>
> One reason is that --depot would be a shorter and more graceful choice
> than --staging-area as a long-form option.  It has the same letter
> count as "index", so changing command and option names to use it
> wouldn't add more typing.
>

Why not keep index as a synonym for staging area and use --index?

> Another reason is that "depot" is slightly more distant from normal
> English vocabulary than "staging area" is.  When you need a word to
> co-opt as a technical term of art, thast's an advantage; it reduces
> the chances of collisions between term-of-art and normal usages.
>

I haven't seen such collisions causing problems.

Adam

Re: Recent documentation patches, and an RFC on terminology

[Aghiles]

Hello Eric,

> We may have an opportunity to improve on the term "staging area".  As
> I reflect on it, I think replacing that with the term "depot" might
> not be a bad idea.  In English this word has the general sense of
> "warehouse", and the more specialized connotation of a place where
> freight is temporarily held for transshipment, or where military
> supplies and recruits are mustered before field deployment.  That is,
> a depot is a particular kind of staging area.

For what it's worth: I am a non-expert git user and I find the name "staging
area" to be perfectly adapted. With this terminology, it makes it easier
for me to explain some git principles to new git users.

The name "depot" is confusing because there is no expectation of a
following action. I already see this question coming: "can I leave my files in
the depot now?"

  -- aghiles