removing files deleted from the working tree

[Joey Morris]

Martin Pool <mbp at canonical.com> wrote on Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 09:21:24AM +1000:
> On 18 August 2010 08:52, Joey Morris <rjmorris12 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > From the Bazaar tutorial: "You can delete files or directories by just
> > deleting them from the working directory. This is a bit different to CVS,
> > which requires that you also do cvs remove." I'm fairly new to version
> > control and Bazaar. What is the rationale behind this behavior? Is it solely
> > for the convenience of not needing a bzr remove?
> >
> > It seems a little dangerous to delete files without an explicit bzr remove.
> > To be fair, I guess it's dangerous only if you aren't paying close attention
> > to the output of bzr status before you commit, which is bad practice anyway.
> > Even so, I think I like Mercurial's behavior better, where the status
> > command identifies deleted files as "missing" instead of "removed", and a
> > commit doesn't remove missing files from the branch.
> 
> Does commit fail if there are un-removed missing files, or does it
> leave them unchanged?

Mercurial leaves the missing files unchanged and successfully commits
the remaining changes. If the only change in the working tree is a
missing file, then hg commit reports that nothing has changed.