Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
>
>> > It might be possible to generate these lease tags prior to operations
>> > which modify history and then maybe having a way to list them so you
>> > can select which one you meant when you try to use force-with-lease..
>>
>> So yeah, I think that is the more interesting direction. I hadn't
>> considered resolving the multiple-operation ambiguity at push time. But
>> I guess it would be something like "you did a rebase on sha1 X at time
>> T, and then one on Y at time T+N", and you pick which one you're
>> expecting.
>
> I think it's wrong to think about these leases as something that you
> take before you start a rewindy operation. That's the wrong time to take
> the lease; by that time, the remote tracking branch may already contain
> new things that you haven't seen yet, so using that as a lease at that
> time will overwrite those things later. You have to take the lease at a
> time where you know that your local branch and the remote tracking
> branch are up to date with each other, which is after pull and push. And
> if you do that, there's no multiple-operation ambiguity to deal with at
> all.

>
>> And I think that may be converging on the "integrate" refs that Stefan is
>> talking about elsewhere (or some isomorphism of it).
>
> Does it make things clearer if we don't use the term "integrate", but
> call the config value in my proposal simply "branch.*.lease"?
>

>
> --
> Stefan Haller
> Ableton
> http://www.ableton.com/