I think there are two aspects to using "force with lease". Firstly, you, a person aware of the option, using it. In this case I think an alias is very fitting, because you get quickly used to just typing `git pf` or so. Plus, you don't have the disadvantage you described: if you’re working on a machine without your alias, you’ll just notice immediately and type the full option. The other aspect is working in a team. The problem there is, that most (at least in my surroundings) use plain --force and you have to make them aware of --force-with-lease. But with an option or an alias, you depend on them using force with lease instead of plain force, so again I don't really see the advantage of such an option. And lastly, a question: say you are using your proposed option and it is turned on. Now, git refuses to push, you clarify the situation and actually mean to push --force now. How would you do this? 1) turn off 2) push 3) turn option on again? Regards, Constantin Quoting Scott Johnson (2018-08-24 18:39:27) > Hello Everyone: > > I'm considering writing a patch that adds a configuration variable > that will allow the user to default the command: > > git push --force > > to: > > git push --force-with-lease > > As discussed here: > > https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30542491/push-force-with-lease-by-default > > Now, I understand that there are downsides to having this enabled, > namely that a user who has this enabled might forget that they have it > enabled, and, as such, on a machine that _doesn't_ have it enabled (of > which they are unfamiliar) might then run the more consequential > command "git push --force", but my thinking is that adding this as a > feature to the git codebase as an _optional_ (i.e. not enabled by > default) configuration variable would then save some of us who use a > "rebase-then-force-push for pull request" workflow some time and > headaches. > > Of course, I don't want to submit a patch if this is a feature that > isn't likely to be accepted, so I wanted to get some thoughts from the > mailing list regarding this idea. > > Thank you, > > ~Scott Johnson
