Re: [RFD] Making "git push [--force/--delete]" safer?

> On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Johan Herland <johan@herland.net> writes:
>>> Overnight, it occured to me that --force-if-expected could be
>>> simplified by leveraging the existing --force option; for the above
>>> two examples, respectively:
>>>
>>>   $ git push --force --expect
>>>   # validate foo @ origin == @{upstream} before pushing
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>   $ git push --force --expect=refs/original/foo my_remote HEAD:foo
>>>   # validate foo @ my_remote == refs/original/foo before pushing
>>
>> First, on the name.
>>
>> I do not think either "--validate" or "--expect" is particularly a
>> good one.  The former lets this feature squat on a good name that
>> covers a much broader spectrum, forbidding people from adding other
>> kinds of validation later.  "--expect" is slightly less bad in that
>> sense; saying "we expect this" does imply "otherwise it is an
>> unexpected situation and we would fail", but the name still does not
>> feel ideal.
>>
>> What is the essense of compare-and-swap?  Perhaps we can find a good
>> word by thinking that question through.
>>
>> To me, it is a way to implement a "lock" on the remote ref without
>> actually taking a lock (which would leave us open for a stale lock),
>> and this "lock"-ness is what we want in order to guarantee safety.
>>
>> So we could perhaps call it "--lockref"?
>>
>> I'll leave the name open but tentatively use this name in the
>> following, primarily to see how well it sits on the command line
>> examples.
>
> I agree that neither --expect nor --validate are very good. I also
> don't like --lockref, mostly because there is no locking involved, and
> I think most users will jump to an incorrect conclusion about what
> this option does, unless they read the documentation.
>
> Some other suggestions:
>
> a) --update-if. I think this reads quite nicely in the fully specified
> variant: --update-if=theirRefName:expectedValue, but it becomes more
> cryptic when defaults are assumed (i.e. --update-if without any
> arguments).
>
> b) --precond. This makes it clear that we're specifying a precondition
> on the push. Again, I think the fully specified version reads nicely,
> but it might seem a little cryptic when no arguments are given.
>
> c) --pre-verify, --pre-check are merely variations on (b), other
> variations include --pre-verify-ref or --pre-check-ref, making things
> more explicit at the cost of option name length.