Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I'm not sure what the right behavior is, but I'm pretty sure that's not > it. Probably one of: > > - skip updating the ref when we see the breakage > > - ditto, but terminate the whole operation, since we might be deleting > other refs and in a broken repo we're probably best to make as few > changes as possible > > - behave as if it was a non-ff, which would allow "--force" to > overwrite the broken ref. Maybe convenient for fixing things, but > possibly surprising (and it's not that hard to just delete the > broken refs manually before proceeding). Perhaps the last one would be the ideal endgame, but the second one may be a good stopping point in the shorter term.
