From: Matthieu Moy Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:40:12 GMT Subject: Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi, > > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matthieu Moy wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin 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