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

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

Hi,

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matthieu Moy wrote:

quoted

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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