Re: Push force-with-lease with multi-URL remote

> > Hmm, true. I'd almost argue that --force-with-lease, at least in its
> > default mode with no explicit lease source specified, should allow an
> > update from X to Y to be a successful noop if the remote "somehow"
> > already moved to Y.
> 
> I've already written the --force-with-lease that expects what you
> have on your remote-tracking branch off as a gross misdesign that
> should be deprecated in the longer term; I do not have a strong
> opinion on the tweaks to be done to the feature until it gets
> dropped ;-)