RFC: bzr rm is hard to use

[Robert Collins]

On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 09:26 -0400, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Robert Collins 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.
> 
> You've left out some of the rules that revert uses:
> - - revert of an added file that was modified by bzr deletes it.
> 
> I don't really get why it makes sense to sometimes rename the file when
> unversioning it, and sometimes not.

I included that rule in my first proposal, and I would prefer to keep
it, but it made explaining it more complex. I like the behaviour of
revert on a newly added file, and I would like 'bzr rm' to precisely ==
'bzr revert' for newly added things.

-Rob
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20090717/cefe0e33/attachment.pgp