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

[Kevin Smith]

On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 10:18 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
> I think that's reasonable; to start with we can just do rm without  
> the option and make the backup file.  We can then use the same model  
> for revert of a newly-added file: move it to a backup and then you  
> haven't lost anything.
> 

Would it be possible for rm to check to see if the working file matches
what's been checked in? If it does, then deleting the file is safe
because you can revert. If not, I would be ok with an error message
telling me that if I *really* want to remove it, I have to say --force
or something.

It might also fail if the file is archived but not present locally,
again requiring a --force option. Or maybe --unversion for this case,
and --delete for the opposite case above.

That way, rm could normlaly remove the file locally and from the
archive, which would be consistent with mv. I think it's the least
surprising action, personally.

Just another thought for the mix.

Kevin