Re: User interface proposal

Jim Blandy <jimb@savonarola.red-bean.com> writes:
> So now we're back to where we started: we know the behavior we want ---
> Subversion should simply notice all changes to controlled files ---
> but we can't implement that. That's why we have `svn mv' and `svn cp'
> in the first place. So the only rationale left for treating `rm'
> differently is `we can figure out how to implement that'. Which is a
> weak argument.

Very well put.

Okay, list, you win: we'll go for conservative consistency and have
"svn rm". :-)
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:09 2006