From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67F9F1F461 for ; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 16:38:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728336AbfH3QiR (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 12:38:17 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:51249 "EHLO pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728187AbfH3QiQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Aug 2019 12:38:16 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 750686E4C4; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 12:38:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; s=sasl; bh=ygOEaOoasETDvGKTLVLi4S5lUT0=; b=U0eZg3 xRYXi6UVD6/0N2CsGnydLicnXCezsZ3JI59hgobwiFPFTlbKS6+nqtpLGHLodnXL 6nhaq+ZQIjMhgIEOjqMiryaCq5Nbwv1uN6eV+1uLIt+4XT6t/3WBe14PfTMOxkcy 6jXGFrhE924BuxZhi1dvntRsT36IOxsVaiGXk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=rU72WI3ieLVbGzdE42AQIDwEA7YsDShC CVBYvUQbVhW+962+O1kpDhCgvA58h+SbjNBeswCL11T17jn0U1UsQbJRL59wSbEc 6U6wq8A8qc+srPvRgXQ02irOCYrNN05dpMLA9tkxOmPhhrQhLs4334O5yAiZ3J18 j2n2M4ntUZQ= Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DA4E6E4C2; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 12:38:16 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.76.80.147]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9B6496E4C1; Fri, 30 Aug 2019 12:38:13 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Albert Vaca Cintora Cc: Philip Oakley , Johannes Sixt , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Feature Request] Option to make .git not read-only in cloned repos References: <34935414-4e69-114b-7a32-f94514e3679d@iee.email> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2019 09:38:11 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Albert Vaca Cintora's message of "Fri, 30 Aug 2019 14:49:30 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8F757436-CB44-11E9-A678-8D86F504CC47-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Albert Vaca Cintora writes: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 9:35 PM Junio C Hamano wrote: >> >> Ah, your "rm" command needs to learn "-f" option, too, then? > > The whole point of this thread was to remove the need of -f forcing the removal. OK, I misunderstood what you wanted to do. If an implementation of Git were making everything under .git/ read-only, including directories, then it is veriy much reasonable to complain against such an implementation. The usual "I know I am doing something unusual and forcing it" safety given by "rm -rf" is not enough to remove such a clone, and user would need "chmod -R u+w" beforehand to be able to remove---that is being unreasonably paranoid in the name of protecting against mistakes. But requiring an additional single "f" when doing "rm -rf .git"? Is that realy too much of a hassle? The option "-f" is to allow people deal with an unusual situation, while preventing everyday use from doing something harmful unintendedly. And removing a cloned repository is an unusual situation that would not happen every day, no?