On 07/03/2013 12:11 PM, Johan Herland wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonathan del Strother
> <maill...@steelskies.com> wrote:
>> I'm struggling to think of instances where I wouldn't want this
>> CAS-like behaviour. Wouldn't it be better to make it the default when
>> pushing, and allowing the current behaviour with "git push
>> --blind-force" or something?
> I believe I agree with you. I guess the reason this hasn't come up
> before is that by far most of the pushes we do are either
> fast-forwarding, or pushing into a non-shared repo (e.g. my own public
> repo), and this safety only really applies when we're forcing a
> non-fast-forward push into a shared repo...
I didn't see Jonathan's original email but I was having exactly the same
though as him (and was even going to propose the same option name).
Non-ff pushing without knowing what you are going to overwrite is
irresponsible in most scenarios, and (if backwards-compatibility
concerns can be overcome) I think it would be quite prudent to forbid a
non-ff push if there is no local remote-tracking branch that is
up-to-date at the time of the push. Circumventing that check should
require some extra-super-force option.
So yes, I very much like the general idea of the RFD and personally
would lean towards making it stronger and default, at the 2.0 transition
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html