Re: [PATCH 0/2] advise about force-pushing as an alternative to reconciliation

> I think the description in the cover was prone to be misunderstood,
> but I think I got it now.  Where you are pushing from your topic
> branch is your "publishing" branch that only you would push into,
> and the primary way you update it is by rebasing your local copy of
> it on the updated 'master' branch to keep up with others' work
> integrated into the shared 'master'.

> In such a workflow, the way to update your "publishing" branch will
> normally be to force push to overwrite.  And in this very narrow use
> case, where nobody else is pushing into your "publishing" branch,
> your remote-tracking branch would be always up-to-date with the
> remote repository and use of --force-with-lease that does not say
> which commit you expect there to be is safe.  In fact, you do not
> even have to use --force-with-lease in such a use case, because its
> additional safety (relative to --force) relies on the assumption
> that you would be the only one who is pushing into the remote
> repository to update that branch---and at that point, --force
> without lease is just as good.