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

Hi,

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matthieu Moy wrote:

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

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?

I tried to be funny, by introducing some diversity...

quoted

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".

quoted

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.

Which proves exactly my point. There are a ton of interpretations that 
make sense. So I would always look into the man page.

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.

Guess what. I do not know how they operate! I have no idea what the 
behaviour of the commands you mentioned is. So before I would answer (if 
they were not rethoric questions), I would actually really read the man 
page to know what they are supposed to do.

Ciao,
Dscho