remove vs rm vs forget

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Jari Aalto+mail.perl wrote:
> * Fri 2006-06-16 Aaron Bentley <aaron.bentley AT utoronto.ca>
> * Message-Id: 4492A0C0.8070507 AT utoronto.ca
> 
>>Jari Aalto+mail.perl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>To me deleting file from working dir without explicit request is too
>>>dangerous -- I think SVN did go wrong there and CVS was right to
>>>request user to do that.
>>
>>To me, the name 'rm' suggests that it's meant to be used in place of
>>POSIX rm in working trees, just as mv is meant to be used in place of
>>POSIX mv.
> 
> 
> I may understand wrong your reference to "working trees"

I should note that we use 'repo' in the CVS/SVN sense, not the Darcs/Hg
sense.  'working tree' refers to the set of version-controlled files
that users can edit, commit it, rename, etc.

> , but If put
> side by side:
> 
>     $ rm
>     $ bzr rm
> 
> It's quite obvious and natural to comprehend that that "bzr" work on
> repo side and not on current working directory/tree(?) side without
> explicit additional option (the suggested "--delete").

I don't think it is obvious.  'bzr cat' behaves like 'cat', 'bzr mv'
behaves like 'mv' (renames the file as well as changing the inventory),
so it's easy to imagine that many people would expect 'bzr rm' to delete
the file as well as removing it from the inventory.

I agree that it's dangerous to do that, so I don't think we should do
that by default.  And so we should remove that alias.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFEktRY0F+nu1YWqI0RAgd6AJ4qb/hTcxxB2BHWSKF+m8vW7gx3awCfcDfN
rTEzXk7unfyKLaMtvpELguQ=
=z1/s
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----