ANN: clean-ignored plugin

[Vincent LADEUIL]

>>>>> "John" == John Arbash Meinel <john at arbash-meinel.com> writes:

    John> Aaron Bentley wrote:
    >> John Arbash Meinel wrote:
    >>>> Vincent LADEUIL wrote:
    >>>>> I'm not kidding, I will *never* use 'bzr ignored
    >>>>> --delete' unless I have the possibility to distinguish
    >>>>> between : - 'ignored *for now* but preciouuuus' - and
    >>>>> 'ignored for ever because I do not care'
    >>
    >>>> I think you have a fairly personal use case. And I
    >>>> wouldn't expect you to delete your ignored files.
    >>  I don't know if it's all that unusual.  For example, the
    >> backups "bzr merge" produces are junk.  I hate them, and I
    >> wish they were never produced in the first place.
    >> 
    >> On the other hand, the files produced by the shelf plugin
    >> are precious, and I never want to delete them.
    >> 
    >> The 'bzr clean-tree --detritus' option exists because some
    >> ignored files are junk and some are precious.
    >> 
    >> Aaron

    John> I think to me this is more of a desire for configuring
    John> merge behavior.  Something like "merge doesn't produce
    John> backups". Which could be a command line option, but
    John> really we want a user setting.

    John> Which pushes for general customization of command line
    John> options.

    John> At least in my mind.

    John> But yes, I do agree that some ignores are more/less
    John> important than others. But I think Arch was more
    John> confusing than helpful by making this distinction.

    John> Perhaps the functionality can be added by a plugin, so
    John> that only people who want the functionality have to
    John> deal with it.

I fully understand and respect your ideas.

I just want to be more precise about mine :

I may be a bit basic here,  but I prefer that bzr do not touch my
working files except when I ask him.

When I told him 'rename these files', I *accept* that he move the
files while recording the  renamings (that case is borderline but
recording the renamings *without* moving  the files will be a bit
extreme :-)

When  I told  him 'I  made modifications  to these  files, record
them', I may accept that it  touch my files (to add log or update
some informations, but I *prefer*  that he refrains from doing so
:)

When I told him 'revert these files to revision n, or revert the
changes made to these files since last commit', I explicitly ask
him to modify my files.

So when  I told him  'ignore these files'  I expect him  to never
touch them.

I much prefer the solution you proposed with : 
,----
| bzr ls --ignored -0 | xargs -0 rm
`----

This keeps things  separate : bzr tells what  files are concerned
(he knows that) and another tool touch them.

That  gives me a  simple rule  when using  bzr :  bzr is  here to
protect my  work, I will never break  anything *inadvertently* by
using it.

In the cases  where bzr will modify my files, I  want a clear set
of commands and  options in big red letters  flashing in front of
my eyes

            Vincent