Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] user-manual: new "getting started" section

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
	Nanako Shiraishi <nanako3@lavabit.com>,
	Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>,
	Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org, Hannu Koivisto <azure@iki.fi>,
	Jeff King <peff@peff.net>, Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com>,
	Matthias Lederhofer <matled@gmx.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] user-manual: new "getting started" section
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:19:36 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <7v4ooseqvb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <94a0d4530911171400ub3b093ai668fd2404b12272f@mail.gmail.com> (Felipe Contreras's message of "Wed\, 18 Nov 2009 00\:00\:46 +0200")

Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

> That could be easily fixed by making explicit in the syntax that these
> are not typical refs: i.e. @stage and @work.

The message I get from that suggestion is that the most sensible approach,
if we are going to add something from this discussion to "git diff", is to
do what you did _not_ quote from my message, which is:

    As to --tree-vs-index counterproposal (was it a counterproposal?),
    except for that I think they are too long to type in practice and need
    to be shortened to be useful, I do not have a fundamental objection
    against it.

IOW, this is about options, and should not be done as syntax sugar that
does a half-baked job of pretending to be refs.