On 6 July 2017 at 21:13, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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? It would. However, this additional safety is not really meaningful to any workflow, while the one added by `--force-with-lease` is. > 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). Fair enough, I'm OK with enabling it with some config. I'd still like a way to enable it by default if I want though. Thanks, Francesco
