Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:
This was after/during a long discussion starting with:
https://public-inbox.org/git/CACBZZX7MeX-6RHgh2Fa9+YL03mjxs8xmyE86HnVxBxjMYizcig@mail.gmail.com/
It appears the only patch that got in from that discussion was my
f17d642d3b ("push: document & test --force-with-lease with multiple
remotes", 2017-04-19) (https://github.com/git/git/commit/f17d642d3b)
Thanks for pointing at the old thread.
As far as our documentation is concerned, the invitation to improve
the situation, offered in "git push --help", is still valid:
Note that all forms other than `--force-with-lease=<refname>:<expect>`
that specifies the expected current value of the ref explicitly are
still experimental and their semantics may change as we gain experience
with this feature.
But I do not think (and I did not think back then) there is a magic
bullet to make the lazy force-with-lease automatically safe for
everybody, so it may be time to declare that the lazy force-with-lease
was a failed experiment and move on, with a patch like the one
suggested last year in the message:
https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqq37a9fl8a.fsf_-_@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com/
On Mon, Aug 27 2018, Junio C Hamano wrote:
[Scott, I hope you're still with us despite your recent attempt to
unsubscribe from git@ :)]
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
This was after/during a long discussion starting with:
https://public-inbox.org/git/CACBZZX7MeX-6RHgh2Fa9+YL03mjxs8xmyE86HnVxBxjMYizcig@mail.gmail.com/
It appears the only patch that got in from that discussion was my
f17d642d3b ("push: document & test --force-with-lease with multiple
remotes", 2017-04-19) (https://github.com/git/git/commit/f17d642d3b)
Thanks for pointing at the old thread.
As far as our documentation is concerned, the invitation to improve
the situation, offered in "git push --help", is still valid:
Note that all forms other than `--force-with-lease=<refname>:<expect>`
that specifies the expected current value of the ref explicitly are
still experimental and their semantics may change as we gain experience
with this feature.
But I do not think (and I did not think back then) there is a magic
bullet to make the lazy force-with-lease automatically safe for
everybody, so it may be time to declare that the lazy force-with-lease
was a failed experiment and move on, with a patch like the one
suggested last year in the message:
https://public-inbox.org/git/xmqq37a9fl8a.fsf_-_@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com/
With the benefit of hindsight I still agree with my counter-argument to
that in https://public-inbox.org/git/8760f4bmig.fsf@gmail.com/
I.e. making plain --force-with-lease harder to use by hiding it behind a
config option gives the user fewer options than with --force to recover.
So I think we should still recommend the longer and even safer variants
of --force-with-lease, but being guaranteed to have the SHA-1 you just
clobbered locally is *better*, and allows us to e.g. do this:
$ git push --force-with-lease
hint: You just clobbered <X> on <remote with <Y>. If you regret
hint: this you can (until the object gets pruned) do:
hint: git push <remote> --force-with-lease=<refname>:<Y>
Or, doing the same with --force with some config option to use the
marginally safer (because at least you have a local copy)
--force-with-lease automatically.