Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > Yeah, the auto-update of the tracking refs came later (so I think you > could argue the bad interaction is my fault!). Heh, I somehow thought it was somebody else. > Hmm, true. I'd almost argue that --force-with-lease, at least in its > default mode with no explicit lease source specified, should allow an > update from X to Y to be a successful noop if the remote "somehow" > already moved to Y. I've already written the --force-with-lease that expects what you have on your remote-tracking branch off as a gross misdesign that should be deprecated in the longer term; I do not have a strong opinion on the tweaks to be done to the feature until it gets dropped ;-)
