Re: Consistent terminology: cached/staged/index

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 12:19 AM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> Piotr Krukowiecki wrote:
>>  --refresh::
>>       Don't add the file(s), but only refresh their stat()
>> -     information in the index.
>> +     information in the staging area.
>
> git add/update-index --refresh are precisely meant for _not_ changing
> the content of the next commit, so this particular change seems
> confusing.

If there is no staging - no commit, then you're right. But then you don't
have to mention index at all:

  --refresh::
       Don't add the file(s), but only refresh their stat()
       information.

I completely agree with Pete Harlan - for normal user git internals are
not relevant - index is just part of git. How or where the stat information is
refreshed does not matter.

In the same way you don't write that it's done by function refresh_index().


> Hoping that is clearer.  Thanks for caring.
> Jonathan

Thanks for explanation.


-- 
Piotrek
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]