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

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> >
> >> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> >> 
> >> > What's so wrong with our man pages? You know, there have been man 
> >> > hours invested in them, and they are exclusively meant for 
> >> > consumption by people who do not know about the usage of the 
> >> > commands...
> >> 
> >> What's wrong is just that I shouldn't have to read a man page to 
> >> avoid data-loss.
> >
> > Okay, Mr Moy.
> 
> Glad to be called by my name. Is it a tradition here, or a way to make 
> fun of me?

> > How did you learn that "rm" leads to data-loss? Because it does.
> 
> It obviously does, and I can't imagine any other behavior than deleting 
> the file for a command like "rm".
> 
> > Hmm. How did you expect then, that git-rm does _not_ lead to data
> > loss? 
> 
> Because there are tons of possible behaviors for "$VCS rm", and I'd 
> expect it to be safe even if VCS=git, since it is with all the other VCS 
> I know.

> What's wrong with the behavior of "hg rm"?
> What's wrong with the behavior of "svn rm"?
> What's wrong with the behavior of "bzr rm"?
> (no, I won't do it with CVS ;-) )
> 
> None of these commands have the problem that git-rm has.