Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] remote: advise about force-pushing as an alternative to reconciliation

>
> Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Just to be sure that we're on the same page, when I said "I thought we
> > just agreed that we don't need to mention force-pushing..." and you
> > replied "I do not think so", were you only saying that you think that
> > changes to `git commit` are essential, or were you also saying that we
> > have not come to an agreement about whether to include force-pushing
> > advice in this message?
>
> None of the above ;-)
>
> With that "I do not think so", I meant that I do not agree with "I
> guess you're saying that we'd still be over-encouraging `git pull`"
> that was in your message.  In the message you were responding to, I
> was saying that the time the user runs `git commit` is not a good
> time for the user to decide how to eventually update the remote
> target, and it does not matter which one we encourage more between
> "`git pull [--rebase]` then `git push`" and "`git push --force`".
>
> I am fine dropping patch [1/2]; we would not be touching output from
> "git status", "git commit", or "git checkout", and "we should not
> talk about 'git pull' (or how the eventual remote update should go,
> for that matter) when we notice that the base of the user's branch
> has become stale" becomes totally out of the scope of this topic.  I
> think that we all are in agreement that [2/2] is the more important
> part of this topic, as it more directly improves the guidance for
> the end-users when their "push" triggers the non-ff check.