"David A. Wheeler" <dwheeler@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On December 14, 2017 1:50:00 PM EST, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>I agree with that. I do not consider the proposed change "good". > > Why is "index" better? It is a confusing name, one that has many > other unrelated meanings. In particular, many projects managed by > git also have an index, but few have a staging area. That's an absurd argument. A database product that wants to be used in library systems are forbidden to have "index" because that may be confused with library index cards? > Also, the phrase "staging area" is already in use, so this is not > a new term (e.g., git-staging). That gets us back to the "'X acts like Y' is different from 'X is Y'". Besides, the phrase "staging area" is a near-sighted and narrow minded term. It focuses too much on working towards the next commit, and ignores there are other aspects that are equally important. When you check out historical revisions (without any intention of making new commits, just sightseeing), for example, the index does not act as "staging area" for creating a new commit. But it still serves Git users by keeping track of the list of paths that came from the HEAD, and recording their contents and the cached stat info for the working tree files (all using the pathnames as keys into these data items).
