Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Hi Junio, > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> In contrast, when you want to make sure that you _actually_ incorporated >> >> the revision that is currently the remote tip, e.g. via `git pull >> >> --rebase` with a possible additional rebase on top that makes this _not_ a >> >> fast-forward, you totally have to force the push, otherwise it won't work. >> > >> > Maybe `--force-if-incorporated`? Originally, I had in mind to call it >> > `--safe-force`, but that might be too vague. >> >> Yup. "safe force" indeed feels like a misnomer. The assumption of >> safety relies heavily on the workflow. >> >> I might even say --force-if-merged even if the way the to-be-lost >> changes have become part of what you are pushing out is not >> technically a merge, but there may be shorter and sweeter way to >> express it than 'merge' and 'incorporate'. > > You're right, `--force-if-merged` is a much better way to put it. I am pretty happy that Srinidhi chose 'included', which is what seems the best description without being a white-lie that is technically incorrect.
