On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 13:40:41 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Personally I never saw the point of having "git rm". Maybe we > should remove it to prevent this confusion from happening. The one place where it's really "necessary", (as opposed to some users just expecting it to be there), is to "undo" a git-add, (and I mean a git-add that actually adds a new path to the index, not one of these newfangled git-adds that simply updates content for an existing path). For that scenario, without git-rm, the user would be forced to learn how to use git-update-index to solve this problem. (And note, that this is also the one case where it's the _right_ thing for git-rm to actually leave the file around. I haven't checked to see if the latest round of git-rm semantic cleanups still handle this use case correctly.) -Carl
Attachment:
pgpnnPT9Dwnjp.pgp
Description: PGP signature