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

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: "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: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:06:17 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <94a0d4530911171506o2b08954bw4acba8ea9193e65d@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7v4ooseqvb.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> 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.

Sorry, I thought your only objection to STAGE and WORKTREE was that
they were not clearly differentiated, and my proposal gets rid of that
issue. Now I fail to see what's the problem since you didn't explain
what's wrong with adding syntactic sugar.

If the goal of the change is to make things more user-friendly, then
I'd say "git diff HEAD @stage" is better than "git diff
--tree-vs-staged HEAD".

-- 
Felipe Contreras