On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 12:29:38PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > > > At this point, it seems that "--delete" is useful, and nothing else has > > been proposed for "-d" in the intervening years. It seems like a > > reasonable use of the flag to me. > > I think there were two (and a half) reasons why we didn't let > "--delete" use a short-and-sweet "-d", and I agree that "something > else that is more useful did not come" removes one of them. > > The other reason was to avoid the chance of fat-fingering, because > deleting is destructive, and it is even harder to recover from if > the damage is done remotely (and the remaining one-half is that > deleting is a rare event). > > Even though I do not think the need for the "safety" has been > reduced over time to warrant this change, a similarity with "branch" > that has "-d/--delete" would be a good enough argument to support > this change.
Thanks for the input, I hadn't considered "safety" at all. We do have safety measures on "git branch -d" that we don't have here. I guess we could implement something similar (e.g., see if the to-be-deleted branch is merged elsewhere; of course we might not have the objects locally at all). On the other hand, you can already screw yourself pretty badly with "push -f". So I think it's probably OK to add "-d". -Peff -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
