AW: RFC: bzr rm is hard to use

Richard Wilbur richard.wilbur at
Fri Jul 17 03:13:14 BST 2009

On Thu, 2009-07-16 at 09:44 +0200, Voelker, Bernhard wrote:
> in advance: sorry for comparing with non-OS ClearCase.
> [...] 
> BTW: if you destroy a versioned file changed in the working tree
> in ClearCase, then it goes to a lost+found area. I like this.
> If it was not changed, I'd personally expect the file to be vanished
> from the file system after a `bzr rm`.
As a former ClearCase user I can testify that the lost+found area was a
royal pain to use because the path was decorated with version
information (in hexadecimal if I remember correctly) at every level.  To
find the file you had to know the correct version of each of the parent
directories.  Until you found and removed the file from lost+found,
ClearCase claimed you had uncommitted changes.

> > On Jul 16, 2009 1:12 PM, "Robert Collins"
> > <robertc at> wrote:
> > 
> > I'll accept anything that works.
> > 
> > However, 'rm' seems to be a trigger point in UI design - its been
> > around
> > a few times because everyone wants it to do what they usually do :).
> > 
> > Here's an alternative simpler to explain version:
> > 'bzr rm foo' will make unversion and delete foo, making backups with
> > the
> > same rules 'bzr revert' uses.
> > 'bzr rm foo --keep' will not make backups and will only unversion.
> > 
> > -Rob
> > 
I much prefer Rob's proposals for bzr to what we dealt with in
ClearCase.  I liked Rob's first proposal as it seemed to Do The Right
Thing in every situation.  Upon review of the second proposal, I think
it accomplishes the same goal with more elegance in the
description--and, I suspect, the implementation.

If the file is not versioned, shall we specify that bzr disclaims
authority to touch it?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : 

More information about the bazaar mailing list