Re: What's cooking in git.git (topics)

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Nov 1, 2007, 22:05 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.0.999.0711011459490.3342@woody.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <7v8x5hab3d.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

> 
> "git clean" is about things that git usually do not care about
> (i.e. things not in .gitignore, or even in .gitignore when -x is
> given).  Everything else including "git stash" is all about what
> git cares about (i.e. tracked paths).

Right. I *love* "git clean". Real men have everything they care about tracked by git, and thus by definition "git clean" is the safest operation possible. I don't understand how anybody can call it "unsafe".

I just wish it was quiet by default - right now it takes a _loong_ time to clean out your crud just because it scrolls forever talking about all those girly files you don't want to keep - and that it had -x and -d on by default, so that us *real* men wouldn't have to type so much.

But making it accept combined options, so that you can do "git clean -xdq" would certainly already be a huge improvement.

But yeah, I guess we could make the "clean.Imagirlyman" option (or however the "please-don't-hurt-me-by-default" option is spelled) the default. That way I'd just feel *extra* manly for immediately disabling it, and laughing at you wimps.

			Linus