On August 25, 2019 3:59 PM, Albert Vaca Cintora wrote: > To: Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 7:54 PM Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Am 23.08.19 um 22:43 schrieb Albert Vaca Cintora: > > > However, I'm sure that a large percentage of developers out there > > > will agree with me that having to use force (-f) to delete every > > > cloned repo is annoying, and even worse, it creates the bad habit of > > > always force-deleting everything. > > > > IMO, the bad habit is to delete cloned repositories all the time. If > > your workflow necessitates this, then you are doing something wrong. > > Maybe you have an X-Y-problem? > > > > -- Hannes > > There are plenty of valid workflows where one would delete a repo. > > What you suggest is like saying I shouldn't delete pictures from my camera, > because in that case I shouldn't have taken them in the first place. > > Sometimes I clone a repo just to grep for an error string and then I don't > need it anymore, or I clone several repos until I find the one that contains > what I want and delete the rest. Sometimes I want to write a patch for some > software I don't develop regularly so I don't need to keep a clone of it. > > In any case, it would be useful to know the reason those files are read-only in > the first place. Do you guys know who might know? Why don't you wrap your clone in a script that calls chmod -R u+w .git after the clone? This seems like a pretty trivial approach regardless of your workflow. This works in Linux, Mac, Windows (under cygwin-bash) and anything else POSIX-ish.
