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

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

 



Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>
>> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>> > What's so wrong with our man pages? You know, there have been man 
>> > hours invested in them, and they are exclusively meant for consumption 
>> > by people who do not know about the usage of the commands...
>> 
>> What's wrong is just that I shouldn't have to read a man page to avoid
>> data-loss.
>
> Okay, Mr Moy.

Glad to be called by my name. Is it a tradition here, or a way to make
fun of me?

> How did you learn that "rm" leads to data-loss? Because it does.

It obviously does, and I can't imagine any other behavior than
deleting the file for a command like "rm".

> Hmm. How did you expect then, that git-rm does _not_ lead to data
> loss? 

Because there are tons of possible behaviors for "$VCS rm", and I'd
expect it to be safe even if VCS=git, since it is with all the other
VCS I know.

What's wrong with the behavior of "hg rm"?
What's wrong with the behavior of "svn rm"?
What's wrong with the behavior of "bzr rm"?
(no, I won't do it with CVS ;-) )

None of these commands have the problem that git-rm has.

-- 
Matthieu
-
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