From: Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org>
Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2013 20:55:28 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] push: document --lockref
Message-ID: <51DC78C0.9030202@kdbg.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vhag3v59o.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Am 09.07.2013 22:37, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> 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.

So what? They still mean the same thing as long as --lockref is not used.

>  If --lockref adds safety to +refspec,
> the same safety should apply to "--force refspec".

No. --force means "I know what I am doing, no safety needed, thank you".

By applying the safety to --force as well, you lose it as the obvious
tool that overrides the safety.

-- Hannes