> Tying permission override to e.g -ffd would be a really bad idea. People would start adopting that for the permission override reason, then someone is going to accidentally nuke a git submodule with unpushed changes. Fair enough. I'm not arguing that it must necessarily be any kind of overloading of -f. It could just as well be a separate option. (Personally I'd say overloading -f to make "-f -f" mean "also delete untracked git repositories" was the bad idea, since that is not the obvious and intuitive meaning of "--force", whereas "try harder to delete files you would normally delete" _is_ the intuitive meaning, but the history can't be changed.) > Also, another way to look at this; currently 'git clean -fd' behaves the same on untracked directories as 'rm -rf' does and I think that's a good model for how to behave. Why should they be different? I would ask "why should they be the same?", because there's no obvious reason why behavior of "git clean", whose purpose is to put a repository back to a pristine state, should always behave the same way as "rm", whose purpose is to delete a specified set of files, and more to the point there is no reason why they should have no option to behave differently. I am not arguing for the default behavior of "git clean" to change, since that could be seen as a breaking change. Also, they are already different. "git clean" will remove a read-only file. "rm" will not (without confirmation), although "rm -f" will.
