Johannes Sixt <> writes:

>> Or perhaps you were implicitly assuming that "--lockref" would
>> automatically mean "I know I am rewinding, so as soon as I say
>> --lockref, I mean --allow-no-ff", and I did not realize that.
> That's what I mean, sort of. Because of your 4 cases of a ref update, I
> do not think that
>> 3. The update fast-forwards, but the ref to be updated is not at the
>>    expected place; or
> is important to consider. The point of --lockref is to avoid data loss,
> but if the push is fast-forward, there is no data loss.
>> If that is the semantics you are proposing, then I think it makes
>> sense to make "--force" the big red button that lets anything go.

I have a reroll that goes in that direction.

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