On Thu, Dec 14 2017, Junio C. Hamano jotted: > Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Anyway I think spending list band width on good documentation is >> not bandwidth wasted. > > I agree with that. I do not consider the proposed change "good". The case you're talking about upthread is something which we could describe in the docs as "the starting point of the staging area is that it's equivalent to the current commit, and is thus used as an index/cache by various commands", if that ever comes up. I think in the vast majority of other cases talking about it as the staging area would be an improvement, since that's the function that has the closest correspondence to what the UI is actually doing, that we're using it as a cache / index is usually (always?) an implementation detail. Even the merge case you mentioned is something where staging area makes more sense: "We tried to merge, but had a conflict, we've staged some of your changes leaving the rest for you to sort out".
