On Mon, Aug 27 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Scott Johnson <jaywir3@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> 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 > > I actually consider "--force-with-lease" that does not say "this is > what exactly I am expecting to replace with my version" a fairly > dangerous form to recommend to the general public, unless their use > of "git fetch" (or "git pull") is disciplined. In the extreme case, > if you habitually do "git fetch origin" only to update the remote > tracking branches (so that you can do things like "git log ..origin" > to see what others have been doing while you were offline), using > "--force-with-lease" offers no value over "--force", as you're > likely to find your remote-tracking ref to be up-to-date, but it no > longer is what you based on your decision that replacing the tip > with your version is safe. > > So, from that point of view, I would recommend thinking twice before > considering to add such a configuration variable. Last year there was a proposal for such a patch in: https://public-inbox.org/git/1499116727-757-1-git-send-email-f@xxxxxxxx/ This was after/during a long discussion starting with: https://public-inbox.org/git/CACBZZX7MeX-6RHgh2Fa9+YL03mjxs8xmyE86HnVxBxjMYizcig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ It appears the only patch that got in from that discussion was my f17d642d3b ("push: document & test --force-with-lease with multiple remotes", 2017-04-19) (https://github.com/git/git/commit/f17d642d3b) I still think something like such a config variable would be useful, as noted in https://public-inbox.org/git/8760f4bmig.fsf@xxxxxxxxx/ Junio voiced similar objections at the time. It would be great to have some patch like this for consideration, but give that thread a read first to see what some of the objections were / various points raised for/against doing that.
