From: Peter <peter.mx@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2016 08:38:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Fwd: git rm
Message-ID: <CAK8tuqiCMUjoS_xXKSJ4qiGK8ioAjfGsQ3_WO0OQj5-5-i7rOw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160707033538.GA7595@sigill.intra.peff.net>

So if I do:

touch abc
git add abc


And after that I do:

git rm abc


Can you agree that there is an asymmetry of two commands vs. one? Git
add only touches the files in .git/ and git rm ALSO affects the
working tree...

Is "git rm" or "git rm --cache" used more often in practice?


Peter

On 7 July 2016 at 05:35, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 06:42:19PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>
>> Peter <peter.mx@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > I am a lightweigt git user so by all means not a reference, but I was
>> > wondering why exactly does "git rm" also delete the file (remove it
>> > from the working tree). I see it as an unintended behaviour as git is
>> > written in a way that it preserves the most data.
>>
>> The data is still preserved.  You can restore it with "git checkout HEAD
>> <file>".
>
> Assuming the file is present in HEAD, of course. But if it is not, then
> git should (and does) complain and ask for "-f".
>
> -Peff