login
Header Space

 
 

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

Score:
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Jeff King <peff@...>
Cc: Christian Jaeger <christian@...>, Yann Dirson <ydirson@...>, Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@...>, <git@...>
Date: Tuesday, July 3, 2007 - 12:47 am

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:


These were explicitly done per request from git-rm users (myself
not one of them) who wanted to:

	rm the-file
        git rm the-file

sequence not to barf.  I suspect they were from CVS background
who are used to the SCM that complains if you still have the
file in the working tree when you say "scm rm".

I would not mind requiring -f for these cases.


I personally do not think we would need any safety check for
"git rm --cached", as it does not touch the working tree.  If
one cares about the differences among three states, one would
not issue "rm --cached" anyway.  The only reason "rm --cached"
is used is because one _knows_ that any blob should not exist at
that path in the index.


-
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: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Johannes Schindelin, (Tue Jul 3, 10:21 am)
speck-geostationary