Re: rm and mv commands: should I use them?

From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Jan 6, 2008, 19:22 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.00.0801061108320.2811@woody.linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <379EDA94-A67B-483A-BC5F-E961DD52AD0C@gmail.com>

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Jon Hancock wrote:

> 
> So, do I need to use git's mv and rm commands?

Nope.

They are there only to

 (a) make people who are used to do "svn mv" not complain

 (b) simplify things a little teeny bit, by avoiding having to "git add" 
     the new file.

So if you do just a rename, you can do either

	git mv old-file new-file
	git commit

or you can do

	mv old-file new-file
	git add new-file
	git commit -a

and the *result* will be the same (the "git commit -a" is there to automatically pick up the fact that "old-file" went away: you could have done it with "git rm old-file" too, or "git add -u" or any number of other ways that update the index).

> Can't I just rename, add, and remove files using any means I like and 
> then just ensure my "index" is staged properly when I do a commit?

Absolutely. And depending on your workflow, that may well be the right thing to do.

In particular, this all means that it's perfectly fine to make changes to a git repository using *any* non-git-aware tools, including things like graphical file managers etc.

> Additionally, is there a simple procedure with git to say: "I want to 
> version exactly what is in my working tree.  If I removed something or 
> added something, just handle it".  This is sort of what "git add ." 
> does, but "git add" doesn't handling things I removed or moved, correct?

You should be able to do that with either

	git add .
	git commit -a

or if you don't want to do a commit, you can do a

	git add -u
	git add .

where the "git add -u" will look at any files git already knows and update them (which includes removing them if they are gone), and then "git add ." will add any new files.

		Linus