Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2013 09:14:50 -0500 From: Dan Rue <drue@therub.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> Cc: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com>, FreeBSD Hackers <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Some improvements to rm(1) Message-ID: <CA%2BRnpd7SfhKhsk_Br237ncjPyuBV5=xLuD=9i%2BY7PjG8Pk-qgg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20130426025049.GC50623@lor.one-eyed-alien.net> References: <CAF6rxg=5aAyk88KcbuGhG1Nwn5HdYqMiaT7umX2EOLApDwOk4Q@mail.gmail.com> <20130426025049.GC50623@lor.one-eyed-alien.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Brooks Davis <brooks@freebsd.org> wrote: > I think the -x option seems a bit odd. What is the use case? At a > first thought, it seems to raise more questions than it resolves. > I was cleaning up a system a year ago and I had an "rm -rf" traverse into a production NFS mountpoint.. oops. I only realized it when it was taking longer than I expected so I stopped it to investigate. Had to restore a bunch of data from backups. Thank you for proposing the patch, I hope it gets committed. Dan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BRnpd7SfhKhsk_Br237ncjPyuBV5=xLuD=9i%2BY7PjG8Pk-qgg>