Re: [PATCH] push: add config option to --force-with-lease by default.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> On 5 Jul 2017, at 17:17, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> The take-away lesson that the earlier thread gave me was that the
> order in which the three options are ranked by their desirebility
> in the UI (and the order we would like to encourage users to use)
> is, from the most to the least preferrable:
> 
> - "--force-with-lease=<ref>:<expect>" that is safer than "--force";
> 
> - "--force" that is known to be dangerous, and does not pretend to
>   be anything but;
> 
> - "--force-with-lease" that pretends to be safer but is not.
> 
> The last form should eventually be eliminated, as there is no way to
> correctly intuit what the expected object should be.

What's not clear to me is what the intended workflow using
`--force-with-lease=<ref>:<expect>` is. Intuitively it seems extremely
cumbersome to manually pluck a revision each time, especially when
dealing with commits that all have the same description.

On the other hand for my workflow `--force-with-lease` works quite well
because I tend to use it in cases where me and a colleague are working
on the same PR, and thus I'm not doing anything else (including fetching).

Moreover, it seems to me that the problem `--force-with-lease` is
just one of marketing. `--force-with-lease` is strictly more "safe"
than `--force` in the sense that it'll reject some pushes that `--force`
will let through. I think that if we advertise it better including its
drawbacks it can still be better than no checks at all.

Francesco



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux