Johannes Sixt <> 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

                git fetch &&
                ... magic integrate of the ongoing work ... &&
                git push --lockref
                : spin
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Reply via email to