From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4554C433E0 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 06:59:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FF662388C for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 06:59:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725907AbhAJG7H (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jan 2021 01:59:07 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:56636 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725385AbhAJG7H (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jan 2021 01:59:07 -0500 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67457116FDA; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 01:58:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=rQ/CYw2gYNshuw5oVBDzp/J0PXo=; b=BXzKTm XG36w0K/Av+xQ9CS7syvRBcrmso4UhzkJado28hVgyqwzM2sbw0or6bbKM8ApXEL KJL8LcPUKbTDgDiluPy0eNTLo1cXfwz5d3oJ7TN1xIWBLI4UdtX5SkGavWDocIXG kpIT/8TfYrKG2IfF1UTKZnz43/Yis9u+Ux6RQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=jgAVVe0liwnuKWpfxh1nWP3e2RX1JtyE lIbONF+4oOX1hCvCnAPHfplfXHE9AodpFsRXimBw898TN9B1WH6P7RO9WqckwZ1p Sk+1Ja5Rhe/5hky2m6b0GspWzgpiFdxiHN7UlPz6R7BYBKMRifwQpNluNTdSEQUA sXQjgjDVzvI= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 549E0116FD9; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 01:58:25 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [35.196.173.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AEC71116FD8; Sun, 10 Jan 2021 01:58:21 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Taylor Blau Cc: Utku , Utku Gultopu via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] doc: remove "directory cache" from man pages References: Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2021 22:58:19 -0800 In-Reply-To: (Taylor Blau's message of "Fri, 8 Jan 2021 14:52:48 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 39FC45A6-5311-11EB-9658-D609E328BF65-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Taylor Blau writes: > On Fri, Jan 08, 2021 at 02:51:05PM -0500, Utku wrote: >> On the other hand, the document clearly states that the terms "directory >> cache" and "cache" have been obsoleted by "index", so there is no source >> of confusion there. On the man pages, there was, which was the reason I >> felt the need to make this change. I thought that keeping at least one >> definition of "directory cache" (where this definition clearly states >> that it is an obsolete term for "index") would be helpful. >> >> So what are your thoughts about it? If you think it is better to remove >> it, please let me know and I will remove it. > > I think that is a good reason to leave it as-is. Since you hadn't > mentioned it in the patch text, I was wondering whether it was an > omission, or you had intended to leave it that way. > > This patch looks good to me as-is. Yup, I agree with the reasoning to keep the "older documentation may say dircache". Will queue. Thanks.