On 4 July 2017 at 19:51, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > People have been burned by the lazy "--force-with-lease" that does > not say what object to expect there and forces the command to DWIM > incorrectly what the remote's ref ought to be pointing at. This > change encourages its use without the user being painfully aware of > that danger. Whenever you say "push --force", you'd be using the > dangerous "--force-with-lease" that does not specify what the > expected current state of the remote is. The end result gives an > illusion of being safer than a simple "--force", without being > not really safer. Could you clarify the danger you're referring to? E.g. give an example of surprising --force-with-lease behavior that we do not want to encourage? Thanks, Francesco
