[MERGE] bzr rm should delete the working file (Bug #82602)

John Arbash Meinel john at arbash-meinel.com
Thu Apr 12 18:18:51 BST 2007

Thomas Ackermann wrote:
> John Arbash Meinel schrieb:
>> I know there have been mention of people who are already using 'bzr
>> rm' and expecting it to leave the file alone (James Troup mentioned
>> this for versioning files in /etc). So we need to make sure to convey
>> this change well. (We aren't destroying the data, you can 'bzr revert'
>> or 'bzr rm --keep', but people need to know about it).
> Just jumped in and felt the need to comment:
> "bzr rm" should never actually remove a file!
> It is a command to "bzr", not to the filesystem!
> If such a feature is needed, use a different and new command - for example:
> "bzr delete" or "bzr destroy"
> Just my 2 cent, sorry to diisturb :)

There are a couple different ways of using 'bzr rm'. For *me* if I'm
'rm' ing a file, I'm done with it. The chance that I want to unversion a
file but not actually delete it is in the low fractions of a percent
case. So having to do "bzr rm foo; rm foo" is a pain. Especially
considering "bzr mv foo bar" moves it for me, and "bzr mkdir dir" will
create the directory, etc.

Having "bzr rm foo" delete the file if it is unmodified and fail
otherwise is actually safer than expecting users to use "bzr rm foo; rm
foo". Because 'rm' doesn't check that there are no changes to the file.

And I agree with Aaron about using a RegistryOption, since --force,
--keep, and --auto are modifying the same behavior, rather than separate
flags. (You can't --force and --keep at the same time)


More information about the bazaar mailing list