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

> Matt McCutchen <matt@mattmccutchen.net> wrote:
>
>> When I'm rewriting history, "git push --force-with-lease" is a nice
>> safeguard compared to "git push --force", but it still assumes the
>> remote-tracking ref gives the old state the user wants to overwrite.
>> Tools that do an implicit fetch, assuming it to be a safe operation,
>> may break this assumption.  In the worst case, Visual Studio Code does
>> an automatic fetch every 3 minutes by default [1], making
>> --force-with-lease pretty much reduce to --force.
>>
>> For a safer workflow, "git push" would check against a separate "old"
>> ref that isn't updated by "git fetch", but is updated by "git push" the
>> same way the remote-tracking ref is and maybe also by commands that
>> update the local branch to take into account remote changes (I'm not
>> sure what reasonable scenarios there are, if any).
>
> Here's a rough proposal for how I would imagine this to work.
>
> For every local branch that has a remote tracking branch, git maintains
> a new config entry branch.*.integrated, which records the sha1 of the
> last upstream commit that was integrated into the local branch.