Home » Mailing list archives » git » 2007 » July » 13

Re: [PATCH] More permissive "git-rm --cached" behavior without -f.

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
[view in full thread]
From: Jeff King
Subject: Re: [PATCH] More permissive "git-rm --cached" behavior without -f.
Date: Friday, July 13, 2007 - 10:57 am

On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 07:41:38PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:


This does make more sense, but there are still some inconsistencies. Is
it OK to lose content that is only in the index, or not?

If it is OK, then --cached shouldn't need _any_ safety valve (and after
all, anything you remove in that manner is recoverable with git-fsck
until the next prune).

If it isn't OK, then you are not addressing the cases where git-rm
without --cached loses index content (that is different than HEAD and
the working tree).

-Peff
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
Messages in current thread:
git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Christian Jaeger, (Mon Jul 2, 11:09 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Yann Dirson, (Mon Jul 2, 12:42 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Christian Jaeger, (Mon Jul 2, 1:23 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Yann Dirson, (Mon Jul 2, 1:40 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Matthieu Moy, (Mon Jul 2, 1:54 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Johannes Schindelin, (Mon Jul 2, 2:05 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Christian Jaeger, (Mon Jul 2, 2:20 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Jeff King, (Mon Jul 2, 9:12 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Junio C Hamano, (Mon Jul 2, 9:47 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Jeff King, (Mon Jul 2, 9:59 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Junio C Hamano, (Mon Jul 2, 10:09 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Jeff King, (Mon Jul 2, 10:12 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Junio C Hamano, (Mon Jul 2, 11:26 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Matthieu Moy, (Tue Jul 3, 3:37 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Johannes Schindelin, (Tue Jul 3, 5:09 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Matthieu Moy, (Tue Jul 3, 6:40 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Johannes Schindelin, (Tue Jul 3, 7:21 am)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Jan Hudec, (Wed Jul 4, 1:08 pm)
Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Matthieu Moy, (Thu Jul 5, 6:44 am)
[RFC][PATCH] Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of git-add, Matthieu Moy, (Sun Jul 8, 10:36 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of gi ..., Johannes Schindelin, (Sun Jul 8, 11:10 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of gi ..., Matthieu Moy, (Sun Jul 8, 1:34 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of gi ..., Johannes Schindelin, (Sun Jul 8, 2:49 pm)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of gi ..., Matthieu Moy, (Mon Jul 9, 2:45 am)
Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: git-rm isn't the inverse action of gi ..., Matthieu Moy, (Fri Jul 13, 10:36 am)
[PATCH] More permissive "git-rm --cached" behavior without -f., Matthieu Moy, (Fri Jul 13, 10:41 am)
Re: [PATCH] More permissive "git-rm --cached" behavior wit ..., Jeff King, (Fri Jul 13, 10:57 am)
Re: [PATCH] More permissive "git-rm --cached" behavior wit ..., Matthieu Moy, (Fri Jul 13, 11:53 am)
Re: [PATCH] More permissive "git-rm --cached" behavior wit ..., Jeff King, (Fri Jul 13, 8:42 pm)
Re: [PATCH] More permissive "git-rm --cached" behavior wit ..., Junio C Hamano, (Fri Jul 13, 11:52 pm)
Re: [PATCH] More permissive "git-rm --cached" behavior wit ..., Junio C Hamano, (Sat Jul 14, 12:16 am)
Re: [PATCH] More permissive "git-rm --cached" behavior wit ..., Matthieu Moy, (Sat Jul 14, 3:14 am)