remove vs rm vs forget (was [MERGE] remove --new)

[Matthew D. Fuller]

On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 02:08:43PM -0400 I heard the voice of
James Blackwell, and lo! it spake thus:
> On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 05:34:50PM +0100, Martin Pool wrote:
> > So I propose to do this:
> > 
> >   bzr rm foo      -- delete it from the working directory and inventory
> >   bzr remove foo  -- just remove from the inventory, leave the file
> 
> Be careful around this area.

Very seconded.  "rm" != "remove" is Bad Juju(tm).


> Is there really a need for rm? I thought running "$ rm file" already
> resulted in  "bzr rm foo" behaviour?

I rather like the current behavior; I may well want to unversion the
file, but not get rid of it (yet, at any rate).  It'd be nice
sometimes to have a unified command, perhaps.  Compare to `cvs rm`,
which also doesn't delete the file, but requires it to have been
deleted by hand beforehand; certainly the worst of all worlds...

I guess I'm weakly in favor of the current behavior, strongly in favor
of the current behavior being available, and very strongly in favor of
remove and rm doing the same thing (whatever that ends up being).


> > 'remove' is not such a great name for it.  I had been thinking
> > 'unversion', or 'forget' which would be consistent with hg.  

I don't think it merits a new command; just a flag to rm one way or
the other.  `bzr rm --delete` and --no-delete, say; pick a default.


-- 
Matthew Fuller     (MF4839)   |  fullermd at over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
           On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.