From: Junio C Hamano Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 06:26:40 GMT Subject: Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add Message-ID: <7vsl86roin.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> In-Reply-To: <20070703051254.GA6477@coredump.intra.peff.net> Jeff King writes: > 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.