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

From: Francesco Mazzoli <f@mazzo.li>
Date: Jul 7, 2017, 06:19 UTC
Message-ID: <CAPB=P5xNDdexiyT_mVvcVmmuzS5RUqnhyC3VofPcs5-k5H8BBQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqy3s1e5uw.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On 6 July 2017 at 21:13, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

> By that logic, a hypothetical update to `--force` that makes 1/3 of
> the attempted forced push randomly would make it safer than the
> current `--force`, wouldn't it?

It would. However, this additional safety is not really meaningful to any workflow, while the one added by `--force-with-lease` is.

Show 14 quoted lines

> When third-party tools fetch and update remote-tracking branches
> behind the users' back, the safety based on the stability of
> remote-tracking branches are defeated.  And the biggest problem
> is that the way `--force-with-lease` misbehaves---it is not like
> it randomly and mistakenly stops the push that could go through;
> it lets through what shouldn't.
>
> See the other patch I sent just now---with something like that patch
> that lets those like you, who know their remote-tracking branches
> are reliable, use the lazy form, while disabling it by default for
> others (until they examine their situation and perhaps disable the
> problematic auto-fetching) in place, I do not think it is a bad idea
> to advertise --force-with-lease a safer option than --force (because
> those for whom it is not safer will not be able to use it).

Fair enough, I'm OK with enabling it with some config. I'd still like a way to enable it by default if I want though.

Thanks, Francesco