Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add

From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Jul 3, 2007, 05:12 UTC
Message-ID: <20070703051254.GA6477@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <7v4pkmt6nk.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 10:09:35PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Exactly.  And not considering that lossage helps us keep our
> sanity.  I think "git rm --cached" falls into the same
> category.  If the user wants to discard what is in the index
> without losing a copy in the working tree, I think we should let
> him do without fuss.

OK. So should we _remove_ the safety valve in all cases where we're just losing stuff that's in the index? It is, after all, recoverable. Should there be a warning (I suspect it would get annoying very quickly)?

I think this would help by making the use of '-f' more rare, which is the thing that can _really_ screw you, since it turns off the safety valve even for things that aren't recoverable.

-Peff