RFC: bzr rm is hard to use

[Robert Collins]

On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 11:04 +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 10:28 +1000, Ian Clatworthy wrote:
> > 
> > I think the command line UI ought to be equally simple. And it can be:
> > 'rm foo' deletes the file so command line users can simply use that
> > instead of 'bzr rm foo' if they want the file deleted. (Yes, there are
> > edge cases but they shouldn't drive the core UI design IMO). 
> 
> I agree. I think 'bzr rm' should remove things - keeping backups is a
> nice thing we can do without distorting the commands behaviour. We can
> look at special casing some of the corner cases (like an
> added-but-not-commited-file), but I don't think that that is needed.
> 
> Having a seperate command to unversion things could be good too, though
> I'm happy with 'bzr rm --keep' as a way to express that.

Oh bah, I misread what you wrote :(.

Uhm, I do agree that the command line should be very simple. I don't
agree that 'bzr rm' should just-unversion. I think that 'bzr rm' should
delete files on disk, and that we should make it safe by using our
knowledge about whether the file can be recovered by the user + doing a
backup when it can't.

I think having 'bzr rm' *not* behave like 'rm' will confuse people - as
in fact the very sentence you wrote about them managed to confuse me.
	
-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/20090720/687dd28a/attachment.pgp