Re: [1.8.0] use 'stage' term consistently

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
To: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>,
	"Jonathan Nieder" <jrnieder@gmail.com>,
	"Jeff King" <peff@peff.net>, "Scott Chacon" <schacon@gmail.com>,
	"Paolo Ciarrocchi" <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>,
	"Jakub Narębski" <jnareb@gmail.com>,
	"Johannes Schindelin" <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>,
	"Piotr Krukowiecki" <piotr.krukowiecki.news@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [1.8.0] use 'stage' term consistently
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 23:16:37 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAMP44s2DU_3UnHxhgwsTVT59KjLi0+=iW7utuofEyis+_06jGA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <vpqehqxmwpj.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Matthieu Moy
<Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr> wrote:
> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:

> * Currenly, "index" and "staging area" are not exactly synonyms. When
>  used with "git add" and "git commit" (without -a), the index is the
>  staging area for the next commit. But when used by "git merge", the
>  index is more a "merging area".

And what is the difference? The result of the 'merging area' is still a commit.

> About the name, an alternative to "stage" was suggested earlier:
> "precommit". If we were to rewrite Git from scratch, I'd argue in favor
> of this one, which is really easy to understand, especially for
> non-native (you really need to know what a "commit" is to use Git, and
> then infering the meaning of precommit is easy). But we probably have
> already a too long history of changing the name, so introducing yet
> another one is perhaps counter-productive. I don't know.

I don't know, precommit is not an English word, and it was discussed
before, but not many people vouched for it.

Plus, it's not already widely used in the interwebs documentation as
staging area is.

Cheers.

-- 
Felipe Contreras