On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <ava...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 6:46 AM, David A. Wheeler <dwhee...@dwheeler.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On December 13, 2017 12:40:12 AM EST, Jacob Keller <jacob.kel...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>I know we've used various terms for this concept across a lot of the
>>>>documentation. However, I was under the impression that we most
>>>>explicitly used "index" rather than "staging area".
>>>
>>> I think "staging area" is the better term. It focuses on its purpose, and
>>> it is also less confusing ("index" and "cache" have other meanings in many
>>> of the repos managed by git).
>>
>> After your patch the majority of the docs will still talk about
>> "index", is this part of some larger series, perhaps it would be good
>> to see it all at once...
>
> ... or none of it. I do not quite see a point of spending list
> bandwidth on a change like this one.
I think wording (as well as its consistency) in the documentation
is rather important.
Just the other day I was reading[1], yet another blog explaining
why git sucks. TL;DR:
(1) (a) The staging area is an advanced concept
and should be disabled by default
(b) and is documented super confusingly.
(2) Branches and Remotes Management is
Complex and Time-Consuming
(3) its ecosystem (GitHub et al.) is not pushing for
innovation, because "forks are not the right model".
[1]
https://gregoryszorc.com/blog/2017/12/11/high-level-problems-with-git-and-how-to-fix-them/
When I saw the original patch, I assumed it was a reaction to this
blog and attempting to fix (1b), but maybe it is unrelated.
Anyway I think spending list band width on good documentation is
not bandwidth wasted.
Stefan
