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

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Junio C Hamano
Date: Monday, July 2, 2007 - 9:47 pm

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, 11:09 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Yann Dirson, (Mon Jul 2, 12:42 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Christian Jaeger, (Mon Jul 2, 1:23 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Yann Dirson, (Mon Jul 2, 1:40 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Matthieu Moy, (Mon Jul 2, 1:54 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Johannes Schindelin, (Mon Jul 2, 2:05 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Christian Jaeger, (Mon Jul 2, 2:20 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Jeff King, (Mon Jul 2, 9:12 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Junio C Hamano, (Mon Jul 2, 9:47 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Jeff King, (Mon Jul 2, 9:59 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Junio C Hamano, (Mon Jul 2, 10:09 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Jeff King, (Mon Jul 2, 10:12 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Junio C Hamano, (Mon Jul 2, 11:26 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Matthieu Moy, (Tue Jul 3, 3:37 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Johannes Schindelin, (Tue Jul 3, 5:09 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Matthieu Moy, (Tue Jul 3, 6:40 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Johannes Schindelin, (Tue Jul 3, 7:21 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Jan Hudec, (Wed Jul 4, 1:08 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Matthieu Moy, (Thu Jul 5, 6:44 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of gi ..., Johannes Schindelin, (Sun Jul 8, 11:10 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of gi ..., Johannes Schindelin, (Sun Jul 8, 2:49 pm)