-1

Git has its own versions of commands such as mv and rm that we really ought to use when doing these operations inside repositories.

However, I'm sure I'm not the only person who often forgets to do this.

Is there any way to automatically use these tools when operating within a git repository?

I'm interested in answers for any of bash, zsh or fish.

7
  • 1
    Not sure why this has been downvoted... Whether you think it's a good idea to do it or not, it's a perfectly valid question. This isn't Reddit, vote buttons are for question quality, not whether you like the premise of the question. Aug 7 at 14:49
  • 1
    Well, from a quality point of view, this question doesn't show any research or effort of any kind, so there are valid reasons to downvote without having to invoke someone's liking or disliking the premise of the question.
    – muru
    Aug 7 at 15:58
  • 1
    This question isn't actually well-researched! It also asks for a solution for three shells, without demonstrating any own prior effort on at least one. Aug 7 at 20:30
  • @MarcusMüller - To be clear, I wasn't asking for answers for three shells, I was asking for answers for any of three shells (maybe I could have phrased that better). Also, you can't research every single question, to research something you need to know what to search. I did do a search on "automatically use git version of mv" and didn't get anything useful. Aug 7 at 22:19
  • The documentation of git mv could be found using git help mv, the official git website or using a search engine. Aug 7 at 22:35

2 Answers 2

3

git mv does a different thing from normal mv and is very much not a drop-in replacement.

For instance, it doesn't act on untracked files:

touch foo
git mv foo bar

prints

fatal: not under version control, source=foo, destination=bar

And refuses to move the file. Similar things apply to the other commands. They are tools for working with git, so using these commands instead of the normal operating system versions is not a good idea.

Git has its own versions of commands such as mv and rm that we really ought to use when doing these operations inside repositories

You oughtn't.

5
  • I know they do different things... But 9/10 times, if you're in a repo, you want to be using the git ones... But you do raise a valid point I suppose Aug 7 at 14:49
  • 3
    There’s no way of knowing the intent of the user in such a way that replacing mv/rm with git … is always safe. You’re unlikely to mess anything up if you use mv or rm instead of git …, but using git … instead of mv or rm could have unfortunate results. Aug 7 at 14:54
  • Not sure I'd agree with that @StephenKitt - It'll mess up your commit history thinking you've deleted and recreated files rather than renaming them a lot of the time. Either way, it's my Torvalds given right to shoot myself in the foot if I want to :P Aug 7 at 15:12
  • 1
    Right, so mv results in a file deletion and creation, but in my experience if both end up in the same commit git figures out that it’s a rename anyway. Aug 7 at 15:14
  • 1
    See this entry in the Git FAQ. Aug 7 at 15:17
1

I suggest you have some myrm / mymv script that git rev-parse in order to detect if you are inside the repo and act accordingly. Something like :

ingitr="$(git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree 2>/dev/null)"
if [ "$ingitr" ]
then
    git rm $1 ( git mv $1 $2 )
else
    rm $1 ( mv $1 $2 )
fi

Of course this is for a starting point. It should certainly be enhanced in order to take care of options.


However I read from comments that… you should not want that. (I'll remove this answer under pressure… ;-)

4
  • Thanks mate... Whether I should or shouldn't want it is kinda irrelevant... The whole Linux philosophy is that I'm well within my rights to shoot myself in the foot if I want to! Thanks for your help here Aug 7 at 15:11
  • 1
    @ScottishTapWater : You are welcome. I do believe in the "Provide tools, not policy" adage too !
    – MC68020
    Aug 7 at 15:17
  • @ScottishTapWater thing is that even within a git repository, you sometimes need to be able to just delete files - not everything in every git repo is part of the index, and only things in the index are handled by git rm. This isn't about shooting yourself in the foot, this is about burning your perfectly good axe whenever you enter a garden, assuming all you need in gardening is a shovel. You're confusing git rm with something it's not! It's not a replacement for rm, it does quite a different job, the only thing they both have in Aug 7 at 20:25
  • 1
    common (aside from the name) is that after git rm you might end up with a file less. That's why I down-voted this question: it does show insufficient research on what git rm actually does! Aug 7 at 20:28

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.