Re: Merges without bases

Darrin Thompson wrote: What I'm going to do is actually an inversion of that. Publishing a repository with the _intent_ of being merged into existing history, and observing obvious naming conventions as the "prior arrangement". I thought once I got the initial baseless merges done and committed

Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary

Horst von Brand wrote: Junio C Hamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tim Ottinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: git-update-cache for instance? I am not sure which 'cache' commands need to be 'index' now. Logically you are right, but I suspect that ma

Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary

Junio C Hamano wrote: Tim Ottinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: So when this gets all settled, will we see a lot of tool renaming? I personally do not see it coming. Any particular one you have in mind? git-update-cache for instance? I am not sure which 'cache'

Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary

So when this gets all settled, will we see a lot of tool renaming? While it would cause me and my team some personal effort (we have a special-purpose porcelain), it would be welcome to have a lexicon that is sane and consistent, and in tune with all the documentation. Others may feel different