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

>
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
> >> diff --git a/remote.c b/remote.c
> >> index a81f2e2f17..1fe86f8b23 100644
> >> --- a/remote.c
> >> +++ b/remote.c
> >> @@ -2323,7 +2323,10 @@ int format_tracking_info(struct branch *branch, struct strbuf *sb,
> >>                      base, ours, theirs);
> >>              if (advice_enabled(ADVICE_STATUS_HINTS))
> >>                      strbuf_addstr(sb,
> >> -                            _("  (use \"git pull\" to merge the remote branch into yours)\n"));
> >> +                            _("  (To reconcile your local changes with the work at the remote, you can\n"
> >> +                              "  use 'git pull' and then 'git push'. To discard the work at the remote\n"
> >> +                              "  and replace it with what you did (alone), you can use\n"
> >> +                              "  'git push --force'.)\n"));
> >>      }
> >
> > Since wt-status.c:wt_longstatus_print_tracking() calls this
> > function, I would expect that this change would manifest as test
> > breakage in "git status" (or "git commit" whose commit log edit
> > buffer is examined) tests.  Are we lacking test coverage?

> The other callsite of format_tracking_info() is "git checkout".
> When you start working on your own topic forked from upstream by
> switching to it, if Git notices that your topic's base has become
> behind (so that you would later need to merge or rebase to avoid
> losing others' work), the "git pull" message is given to tell you
> that it is OK if you want to catch up first before working on it.
>
> But the new message does not fit well in the workflow.  It is
> primarily targetted for the users who are about to push out.  They
> are at the point where they are way before being ready to "discard
> the work at the remote".

> I guess the updated message in the context of "git status" has
> exactly the same issue.  The user is about to make a commit, which
> will later be pushed out.
>
> So, while I agree that new users may need to be made aware of
> situations where they should not afraid of overwriting the remote
> repository by forcing a non-ff push, I am not sure if this is a good
> advice message to convey it.