login
Header Space

 
 

Re: [PATCH] More permissive "git-rm --cached" behavior without -f.

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: <git@...>
Cc: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@...>
Date: Friday, July 13, 2007 - 11:42 pm

On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 08:53:38PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:


Right, my point was that there is a case where running without --cached
could lose content: when there is no working tree file. However,
thinking about it more, I recall that Junio made the point that allowing
that behavior means the CVS idiom of "rm file; git-rm file" will just
work.

Not that that was a problem you introduced; I merely wanted to push for
total consistency rather than just handling --cached. But I think the
non --cached behavior is actually right now, so let me retract my
complaint.

And assuming the "git-rm when no working tree file" current behavior is
OK, then I think your patch removes the last consistency problem that I
mentioned in my state table here:

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/51449

So in a round-about way, I totally approve of your patch. Sorry for the
confusion.

-Peff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Christian Jaeger, (Mon Jul 2, 2:09 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Yann Dirson, (Mon Jul 2, 3:42 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Christian Jaeger, (Mon Jul 2, 4:23 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Yann Dirson, (Mon Jul 2, 4:40 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Christian Jaeger, (Mon Jul 2, 5:20 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Jeff King, (Tue Jul 3, 12:12 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Junio C Hamano, (Tue Jul 3, 12:47 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Jeff King, (Tue Jul 3, 12:59 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Junio C Hamano, (Tue Jul 3, 1:09 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Jeff King, (Tue Jul 3, 1:12 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Junio C Hamano, (Tue Jul 3, 2:26 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Matthieu Moy, (Mon Jul 2, 4:54 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Johannes Schindelin, (Mon Jul 2, 5:05 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Matthieu Moy, (Tue Jul 3, 6:37 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Johannes Schindelin, (Tue Jul 3, 8:09 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Matthieu Moy, (Tue Jul 3, 9:40 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Jan Hudec, (Wed Jul 4, 4:08 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Matthieu Moy, (Thu Jul 5, 9:44 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-..., Johannes Schindelin, (Sun Jul 8, 2:10 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-..., Johannes Schindelin, (Sun Jul 8, 5:49 pm)
Re: [PATCH] More permissive "git-rm --cached" behavior witho..., Jeff King, (Fri Jul 13, 11:42 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Johannes Schindelin, (Tue Jul 3, 10:21 am)
speck-geostationary