From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Schindelin Subject: Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 15:21:15 +0100 (BST) Message-ID: References: <46893F61.5060401@jaeger.mine.nu> <20070702194237.GN7730@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net> <46895EA4.5040803@jaeger.mine.nu> <20070702204051.GP7730@nan92-1-81-57-214-146.fbx.proxad.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Yann Dirson , Christian Jaeger , git@vger.kernel.org To: Matthieu Moy X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Jul 03 16:21:27 2007 connect(): Connection refused Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1I5jFu-00051E-TR for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:21:27 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758290AbXGCOVX (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:21:23 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758231AbXGCOVX (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:21:23 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:36814 "HELO mail.gmx.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1757556AbXGCOVV (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:21:21 -0400 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 03 Jul 2007 14:21:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (EHLO [138.251.11.74]) [138.251.11.74] by mail.gmx.net (mp046) with SMTP; 03 Jul 2007 16:21:20 +0200 X-Authenticated: #1490710 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1/RTwFQv0LRv2cLnVthPhj338STSfkgXlm7cgJ6r/ 3NtYeKBGgNIg8u X-X-Sender: gene099@racer.site In-Reply-To: X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Hi, On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Matthieu Moy wrote: > > > >> Johannes Schindelin writes: > >> > >> > 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... > > 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. 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