From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 21:57:47 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] push: document --lockref
Message-ID: <7v8v1crc84.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <51DF1F56.9000705@kdbg.org>

Johannes Sixt <j6t@kdbg.org> 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.