From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 21:26:47 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/6]
Message-ID: <68F84DC48FCA4226A8F3C00AC42A9598@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To: <7v8v0x874x.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 7:26 PM
> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster <at> pobox.com> writes:
>>
>>>
>>> This is mostly unchanged since the previous round, except that
>>>
>>>  * The option is spelled "--force-with-lease=<ref>:<expect>".
>>>    Nobody liked "cas" as it was too technical, many disliked
>>>    "lockref" because "lock" sounded as if push by others were
>>>    excluded by it while in fact this is to fail us.
>>
>> Perhaps "--force-gently" ? :-)

Or "--force-carefully" to better indicate the safety / care that is 
being applied?

>
> Hmph.  But we usually use "gently" to mean "do not give the end user
> an error message--the caller handles the error itself".
>
> While the option lets you break the usual "must fast-forward" rule,
> it is more precise in that the remote ref must be pointing at not
> just any ancestor of what you are pushing, but has to be at the
> exact commit you specify.
>
> E.g. if you have built one commit on top of the shared branch, and
> try to push it with "push --cas=pu:HEAD^ HEAD:pu" (because you know
> one commit before the tip is where you started from), your push will
> be rejected if somebody else did an equivalent of "reset HEAD~3" on
> the receiving end (perhaps because the top commits recorded some
> material inappropriate for the project).  Your new commit is still a
> decendant of that rewound tip, and usual "must fast-forward" rule
> would accept the push, but with "push --cas=pu:HEAD^ HEAD:pu", you
> will notice that somebody wanted to rewind the tip and pushing your
> work that contains these dropped commit contradicts with that wish.
>
> So I dunno.
> --