Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Now, to be honest, I thought that this mode would merit a new option > rather than piggy-backing on top of `--force-with-lease`. The reason is > that `--force-with-lease` targets a slightly different use case than mine: > it makes sure that we do not overwrite remote refs unless we already had a > chance to inspect them. > > In contrast, my workflow uses `git pull --rebase` in two or more separate > worktrees, e.g. when developing a patch on two different Operating > Systems, I frequently forget to pull (to my public repository) on one > side, and I want to avoid force-pushing in that case, even if VS Code (or > I, via `git remote update`) fetched the ref (but failing to rebase the > local branch on top of it). > > So I think that the original `--force-with-lease` and the mode you > implemented target subtly different use cases that are both valid, and > therefore I would like to request a separate option for the latter. I tend to agree that that particular use case does not fit what the "force with lease" option is meant to solve. It should be a different option, as you do not even want to be forcing. But probably I am not getting your use case well enough to give a good name suggestion. "git push" without any form of "force" would safely fail in your "I rebased on one side, and the other one is now out of sync" situation already, so...
