Doc review & quick ref card - anyone with some DTP skills?

[Aaron Bentley]

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

John Arbash Meinel wrote:
> Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> There are major users that expect 'bzr rm' to do --force, and others that
> expect '--keep'.

And others like myself, don't want 'rm' to be an alias of 'remove'.
They want 'remove' to be the inverse of 'add', and 'rm', if it has to
exist at all.

> Because of these 2 important and different use cases, we gave up and just made
> the user supply what they really mean.

I think that --safe is a worse default than --force or --keep, because
it's guaranteed not to do what you want if the file has been modified.

> And while "bzr commit" will
> automatically unversion missing files, there is another huge discussion that it
> shouldn't be doing that. (mv foo bar; bzr commit, what happened to foo/bar?)

If you want a commit --really-strict option, fine.  But Bazaar makes it
really easy to fix any mistakes you make.  And anyhow, YAGNI-- we don't
*have* commit --really-strict yet.

The "rm" behavior is nice and friendly.  It increases the the range of
operations you can do with external tools.  I'm happy about that the
same way I'm happy that 'cp -r' will copy a branch and 'mv' will move one.

We should do our best to avoid asking users to change their habits.  I
don't see a need here.  Making people do "bzr rm" would be one step away
from making them do "bzr edit" before editing files.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGp6n00F+nu1YWqI0RAhv4AJ9tkktokrvpnkCS+cTN5zECjAeqbACfaUb/
IVXCdojVRc5rFfPZORk+eyE=
=P4bi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----