Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> --index::
>> - When `--check` is in effect, or when applying the patch
>> - (which is the default when none of the options that
>> - disables it is in effect), make sure the patch is
>> - applicable to what the current index file records. If
>> - the file to be patched in the working tree is not
>> - up to date, it is flagged as an error. This flag also
>> - causes the index file to be updated.
>> + Apply the patch to both the contents in the index and in the
>> + working tree. It is an error if the patched file in the
>> + working tree is not up to date.
>
> I wonder if it would be clearer to say "This option requires the index
> entry for the patched file to match the working tree".
Perhaps. But "the index entry to match the working tree" leaves the
definition of what is to "match" open to interpretation, so it may
need to be further tightened.
In the olden days, everybody knew "up to date", used to describe the
state of a file in the working tree, is a technical term with a
specific meaning (i.e. the contents has not changed since it was
added to the index, and also cached stat information in the index is
fresh), and that is why the original description used that wording.
But I agree that we should be able to express this without resorting
to a term of art.
An error is raised if the file in the working tree being patched
has contents different from what is registered in the index.
captures most of it, but still misses the "cached stat information
also must match" part.
