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

>> On 5 Jul 2017, at 17:17, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> The take-away lesson that the earlier thread gave me was that the
>> order in which the three options are ranked by their desirebility
>> in the UI (and the order we would like to encourage users to use)
>> is, from the most to the least preferrable:
>>
>> - "--force-with-lease=<ref>:<expect>" that is safer than "--force";
>>
>> - "--force" that is known to be dangerous, and does not pretend to
>>   be anything but;
>>
>> - "--force-with-lease" that pretends to be safer but is not.
>>
>> The last form should eventually be eliminated, as there is no way to
>> correctly intuit what the expected object should be.
>
> What's not clear to me is what the intended workflow using
> `--force-with-lease=<ref>:<expect>` is. Intuitively it seems extremely
> cumbersome to manually pluck a revision each time, especially when
> dealing with commits that all have the same description.
>
> On the other hand for my workflow `--force-with-lease` works quite well
> because I tend to use it in cases where me and a colleague are working
> on the same PR, and thus I'm not doing anything else (including fetching).
>
> Moreover, it seems to me that the problem `--force-with-lease` is
> just one of marketing. `--force-with-lease` is strictly more "safe"
> than `--force` in the sense that it'll reject some pushes that `--force`
> will let through. I think that if we advertise it better including its
> drawbacks it can still be better than no checks at all.
>
> Francesco