Johannes Sixt <j...@kdbg.org> writes:
> Am 09.07.2013 21:53, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
>> +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
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