Subject: Re: Consistent terminology: cached/staged/index

From: Miles Bader <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2011 20:04:48 +0900

Michael J Gruber <[email-masked]> writes:
> Short options should really not be "wasted" easily. "-s" named after "to
> stage" is really problematic, as outlined in this thread.

Er, but the point is that this is _such_ a common operation, that a
short option for it would not be "wasted" at all.  [The whole concept of
"wasting" short options doesn't even make sense unless you're willing to
then use the resulting "preserved" options eventually...]

Indeed it seems a little weird that there's not one for this already,
given how common short options are in git generally, often for far less
useful options than --cached/--staged; I can only guess that the reason
is basically historical accident.

As for the exact letter chosen, "-s" seems perfectly fine to me.  Short
options do not need to be "perfect" to be useful, and the connection
with --staged is a perfectly plausible memory aid for that short period
during which people memorize them.

-Miles

-- 
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
  --Albert Einstein