> 
[ message continues ]

I'm happy with the direction of having several commands that take the
place of update-index, each with its own name oriented toward what the
user wants to do.

Obviously, "add", "mv", and "rm" have obvious places where the user
wants to use them.

There's the merge case where "resolve" and "resolved" have both been
floated as possible names.

It might even make sense to invent one more name for the case where
the user wants to inform git that a file has been edited and that git
should accept the new contents. It's the sort of "note that file is
edited" operation that could be recommended to the user with "add; fix
typo; commit" confusion.

Sure, "add" could be used again, and "update-index" clearly _works_
but it's a rather ugly name, (and already has "plumbing" functionality
like --add and --remove that we don't want here).

If "resolved" is the name for the new command, then "edited" might
work, but I think these adjectives don't work well next to the more
active verbs that git normally accepts, (and yes, "mv" and "rm" are
verbs even if horribly mangled spellings).

So I'd vote for "resolve" along with something else for the
mark-as-edited case. Maybe "refresh"? That's the best I've thought of
so far. Anyone else have a better suggestion? It does clash with the
separate notion of "git update-index --refresh" which is a bit
annoying. Any other suggestions for this?

-Carl
[ message continues ]

git mark

and git add becomes just a synonym for git mark.

Cheers,
- Michael
-

[ message continues ]

I actually thought of that. But compared to "refresh" it sounds more
like something that suggests marking a file path rather than copying
contents, so our dark lord might not approve of the wrong ideas it
might allow to persist in brain-damaged heads.

It is nice and short, which is a bonus though.

-Carl
[ message continues ]

Dnia czwartek 30. listopada 2006 22:50, Carl Worth napisa
[ message continues ]

Hi,


... and suffer another thread a la "pull/merge"? Please no.

Ciao,
Dscho

-

[ message continues ]

git stage

?
-

[ message continues ]

Hi,


I suggest "commit". How about this: after editing the file, you tell git 
that you finished editing it by doing

	git commit the-edited-file.txt

Hmmm?

Ciao,
Dscho

-

[ message continues ]

Sure.  ;-)


Nicolas
-

[ message continues ]

I disagree.  "add" is beautiful. It is short, easy to remember, and 
transcend pretty much what the index is all about.  And just because 
"add" and "edited" can be made into the same command is a pretty damn 
good reason not to create a separate command.

   You "add" changes to the changeset then you commit that changeset.

No need to care whether or not this is a new file, an edited file, etc.


Nicolas
-

[ message continues ]

checkin.

You check things into index with "git checkin" and later commit
the index with "git commit".


-

[ message continues ]