Re: [PATCH] push: make `--force-with-lease[=<ref>]` safer

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
>
> >> In contrast, when you want to make sure that you _actually_ incorporated
> >> the revision that is currently the remote tip, e.g. via `git pull
> >> --rebase` with a possible additional rebase on top that makes this _not_ a
> >> fast-forward, you totally have to force the push, otherwise it won't work.
> >
> > Maybe `--force-if-incorporated`? Originally, I had in mind to call it
> > `--safe-force`, but that might be too vague.
>
> Yup.  "safe force" indeed feels like a misnomer.  The assumption of
> safety relies heavily on the workflow.
>
> I might even say --force-if-merged even if the way the to-be-lost
> changes have become part of what you are pushing out is not
> technically a merge, but there may be shorter and sweeter way to
> express it than 'merge' and 'incorporate'.