Am 7/3/2013 12:50, schrieb Michael Haggerty:
> 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.
I don't think that is necessary. We already have *two* options to
force-push a ref: the + in front of refspec, and --force.
IMO, the meaning of + should be changed to "force-push with safety", and
--force can then be used to override if the safety triggers (i.e., --force
is your extra-super-force option).
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