Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > If you're already copying sha1s around you could use those as the > > --force-with-lease=branch:<commit>, no? > > > > That's better guarantee than just using --force-with-lease alone. > > Absolutely. That was the _only_ way the feature was originally designed > to be used sensibly. We really shouldn't have added that "lazy" option [...] > > Perhaps we should deprecate that "lazy" feature and remove it over > time, making sure that everybody feeds the explicit commit object name > that was recorded by the user somewhere (e.g. the approach to tag the > commit to record the expected remote tip, which Peff illustrated). I agree that this is better than giving the user a false sense of security. The problem is that manually recording the lease is painful. Like I illustrated, the assumption that you can "simply" do this: (... my working copy is in some ramdom state) (... now I decide I want to rewrite history) $ git tag lease origin/master $ git rebase -i $ git push --force-with-lease=master:lease doesn't hold, because by the time you decide to rewrite the history it's already too late. To solve this, I'd have to record the lease every time I pull or push; this is a lot of work, and easy to forget and error-prone. Hence my suggestion to have git do this automatically. I'd be interested in your thoughts about that proposal, Junio; you didn't say anything about that at all yet. -- Stefan Haller Berlin, Germany http://www.haller-berlin.de/
