Junio C Hamano venit, vidit, dixit 28.02.2011 00:57: > Jon Seymour <jon.seymour@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I guess the noun 'stage' does have a use in git-speak to refer to the >> different arms of an unresolved merge. > > That is correct. > > For some historical background around "cache" and "index", this > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/780/focus=924 > > may shed some light. > > From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: [RFC] Possible strategy cleanup for git add/remove/diff etc. > Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:51:06 -0700 (PDT) > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0504191846290.6467@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > That is indeed the whole point of the index file. In my world-view, the > index file does _everything_. It's the staging area ("work file"), it's > the merging area ("merge directory") and it's the cache file ("stat > cache"). > > And this one: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/6670/focus=6863 > > is even more illuminating. > > Notice that the word "staging area" is used in the old article as a way to > explain one of the three important aspects of the index, and the other > article that is about nailing down the terminology, the word does not even > come into the picture at all (one reason being that it will confuse > readers if "staging area" is used too casually in a document to precisely > define terminology, which needs to explain the merge stage(s) in the > index). Oh, the classics :) Thanks for an illuminating and entertaining read! Michael -- 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