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

Jeff King [off-list ref] writes:

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

quoted

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 personally do not think we would need any safety check for
"git rm --cached", as it does not touch the working tree.  For
non-cached case I think the current behaviour is fine.

But I should warn you that I rarely use "git rm" myself.