RFC: bzr rm is hard to use

[Ewan Milne]

Robert:

> On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 13:57 +0100, Ewan Milne wrote:
>> > It also looks to me if option 1 is winning and is closer to what we
>> > have now, but not everybody agrees.
>> > In the end there can be only one default, so we have to choose.
>>
>> I might be misreading the thread, but it seems to me that option 2 has
>> more support?
>>
>> Perhaps this is my interpretation because it is the option I favour
>> ;-) It seems very important to me to have symmetry between add and
>> remove, so that by default bzr rm should not remove the file from the
>> filesystem. As demonstrated by Ian:
>>
>> >  bzr add foo
>> >  (damn, didn't mean that)
>> >  bzr rm foo
>
> My proposal doesn't remove it either (because of the 'like revert' rule,
> and revert in this case won't remove it).

Actually that is true: it is the current behaviour, due to the lack of
a default behaviour in this case, which requires "bzr rm --keep foo".
Option 1 being summarised on the bluprint as "delete the files by
default" has me confused. Your first mail did indeed suggest that
removing an added file should just unversion it.

Still, it seems to me that keeping the files should generally be the
default; remove should simply mean remove from source control. I must
admit I don't know all the rules that revert uses. It looks as though
Aaron is thinking this aspect through so I'll yield to him.