Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> writes: > Jonathan del Strother <maill...@steelskies.com> writes: > >> 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? > > Not until we run this in the wild for a while and the mechanism > proves to be useful without being too cumbersome to some population. > > Then at a major version bump, we can start talking about enabling it > by default, allowing people to selectively disable it.
If we enable this by default, we would need to be a lot more careful designing what should happen when there is no remote-tracking branch the corresponds to what we are updating/deleting. The proposed behaviour so far is to fail, and that is justifiable because "the user asked us to check, but did not say what to check against, and we tried to check with a remote-tracking branch and found none. We cannot satisfy the user's request to check, hence we fail". Enabling the check by default will change the picture somewhat; that justification no longer holds. If you are pushing to more than one publishing branches of your own, there is no reason to have remote-tracking branches for the secondary locations, because you always push to all your publishing repositories at the same time, and you only need to keep remote tracking for one of them to remember what you pushed out. Making a push to secondaries fail in such a case is bad, and forcing the user to disable the feature for each secondary remotes is unnice, too. -- 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