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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 10:09:35PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Exactly.  And not considering that lossage helps us keep our
> sanity.  I think "git rm --cached" falls into the same
> category.  If the user wants to discard what is in the index
> without losing a copy in the working tree, I think we should let
> him do without fuss.

OK. So should we _remove_ the safety valve in all cases where we're just
losing stuff that's in the index? It is, after all, recoverable. Should
there be a warning (I suspect it would get annoying very quickly)?

I think this would help by making the use of '-f' more rare, which is
the thing that can _really_ screw you, since it turns off the safety
valve even for things that aren't recoverable.

-Peff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux