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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 3, 2007, 06:26 UTC
Message-ID: <7vsl86roin.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070703051254.GA6477@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:

Show 11 quoted lines

> On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 10:09:35PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> 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 personally do not think we would need any safety check for "git rm --cached", as it does not touch the working tree. For non-cached case I think the current behaviour is fine.

But I should warn you that I rarely use "git rm" myself.