Francesco Mazzoli <f@xxxxxxxx> writes: > 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. By that logic, a hypothetical update to `--force` that makes 1/3 of the attempted forced push randomly would make it safer than the current `--force`, wouldn't it? When third-party tools fetch and update remote-tracking branches behind the users' back, the safety based on the stability of remote-tracking branches are defeated. And the biggest problem is that the way `--force-with-lease` misbehaves---it is not like it randomly and mistakenly stops the push that could go through; it lets through what shouldn't. See the other patch I sent just now---with something like that patch that lets those like you, who know their remote-tracking branches are reliable, use the lazy form, while disabling it by default for others (until they examine their situation and perhaps disable the problematic auto-fetching) in place, I do not think it is a bad idea to advertise --force-with-lease a safer option than --force (because those for whom it is not safer will not be able to use it).
