On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 12:33 PM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 08/07/2023 19:56, Alex Henrie wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 7, 2023 at 2:49 AM Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> + "before pushing again, or use 'git push --force' to delete the remote\n" > >>> + "changes and replace them with your own.\n" > >> > >> I think it would be good to give a bit more context here as to when > >> force pushing is a good idea. For example something like > >> > >> If you have rebased the branch since you last integrated remote > >> changes then you can use > >> 'git push --force-with-lease=<branch-ref> --force-if-includes' to > >> safely replace the remote branch. > >> > >> If you have deleted and then recreated the branch since you last > >> integrated remote changes then you can use 'git push +<branch>' to > >> replace the remote. Note that if anyone else has pushed work to > >> this branch it will be deleted. > >> > >> It makes the advice longer but the user get a specific suggestion for > >> their current situation rather than a generic suggestion to delete the > >> remote changes without discussing the implications. In this case we know > >> that it was the current branch that was rejected and so should fill in > >> the branch name in the advice as well. > > > > Even if we could fill in <branch-ref> automatically, it's too much to > > ask the user to type out --force-with-lease=<branch-ref> > > --force-if-includes. > > Can't they just copy and paste the command from the advice message? Even > if the user does not copy and paste it is not that hard to type it out > with the benefit of the shell's tab completion. You're basically saying > this combination of options is unusable in practice because it is too > much effort to type them. We could look to see if we can make it less > unwieldy by changing push to allow --force-if-includes=ref imply > --force-with-lease for instance. Yes, `git push --force-with-lease=<branch-ref> --force-if-includes` is cryptic and unwieldy, and even asking users to copy and paste a command is a bit much. If that's what's presented as the alternative to integration via `git pull`, it could make users who want to overwrite the remote branch think that force-pushing isn't what they want because what they want is conceptually very simple, so they expect it to have a simple user interface. It's possible that improvements will be made to this user interface in the future, but that's definitely not something that I'm going to tackle. I just want Git to give decent advice about what is available right now. If we can't agree on what specific command to recommend, maybe we can at least agree to tone down these messages to not sound so prescriptive. Just changing "Use 'git pull' to integrate..." to "You can use 'git pull' to integrate...' would be a big improvement. Thanks, -Alex
