Johannes Sixt <j...@kdbg.org> writes: > Am 09.07.2013 21:53, schrieb Junio C Hamano: >> +--lockref:: >> +--lockref=<refname>:: >> +--lockref=<refname>:<expect>:: >> ... >> +This is meant to make `--force` safer to use. > > This is a contradiction. "--force" means "I mean it, dude", and not "I > mean it sometimes". It would make sense if this sentence were "This is > meant to make `+refspec` safer to use."
No, this *IS* making --force safer by letting you to say in addition to --force alone which is blind, add --lockref to defeat it. I do not see any good reason to change the samentics of "+refspec" for something like this. "+refspec" and "--force refspec" have meant the same thing forever. If --lockref adds safety to +refspec, the same safety should apply to "--force refspec". > Do you intend to require users to opt in to safety by saying --lockref > until the end of time? For normal users this is *NOT* necessary. I do not know where people are getting the idea of making it default. Rewinding a branch, needing to --force, is an exceptional case. > Which makes it actually usable only for scripts > and aliases. How do you override when the safety triggers, e.g., in an > alias that uses --force --lockref? The original request for this feature did come from script writers, who want to spin until git fetch && ... magic integrate of the ongoing work ... && git push --lockref do : spin done -- 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