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

From: Matthieu Moy <matthieu.moy@imag.fr>
Date: Jul 3, 2007, 13:40 UTC
Message-ID: <vpqir91hagz.fsf@bauges.imag.fr>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707031308170.4071@racer.site>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 14 quoted lines

> Hi,
>
> 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.

-- 
Matthieu