Re: [PATCH] push: add config option to --force-with-lease by default.

>
> On Wed, Jul 05 2017, Junio C. Hamano jotted:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Francesco Mazzoli <f@mazzo.li> wrote:
>>>
>>> Could you clarify the danger you're referring to? E.g. give an example
>>> of surprising --force-with-lease behavior that we do not want to
>>> encourage?
>>
>> https://public-inbox.org/git/1491617750.2149.10.camel@mattmccutchen.net/
>
> In the context of this patch I don't understand why you're concerned
> that making --force mean --force-with-lease makes things worse.
>
> See my
> https://public-inbox.org/git/CACBZZX48RanjHsv1UsnxkbxRtqKRGgMcgmtVqQmR84H5j8awqQ@mail.gmail.com/
> (follow-up to the E-Mail you posted):
>
>     To me the *main* feature of --force-with-lease is that it's less
>     shitty than --force, without imposing too much UI overhead. We have to
>     be really careful not to make --force-with-lease so complex by default
>     that people just give u and go back to using --force, which would be
>     worse than either whatever current problems there are with the
>     current --force-with-lease behavior, or anything we replace it with.
>
> I.e. yes there are workflows with some background auto-update that will
> make it less safe, which I documented in f17d642d3b ("push: document &
> test --force-with-lease with multiple remotes", 2017-04-19).
>
> But it is still the case that --force-with-lease is categorically a more
> safer option than simply --force, which has none of the safety
> --force-with-lease has. It would still wipe away history in this
> scenario you're pointing out *and others*.
>
> Surely the point of having an option like this is to have a net
> reduction in complexity.