From: Matthieu Moy Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 18:35:16 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] push: point to 'git pull' and 'git push --force' in case of non-fast forward Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <7vy6pujmsc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> Junio C Hamano writes: > Instead of saying "Merge in", we could say "Integrate" to cover both > practices. I'm fine with both. I consider rebasing as a kind of merging, but ... > I also happen to think that the mention of --force falls into the > same category as "try shooting and then study if it hurgs". Depending on the context. In the case of git push git commit --amend git push Pointing the user to 'git pull' is probably the thing which hurts the most. And to me, the name --force already means "yes, I know what I'm doing". My proposal was "[...] use git push --force to discard the remote changes." which warns enough about the danger. > So how about phrasing it like this? > > Non-fast forward pushes were rejected because you would discard remote > changes you have not seen. Integrate them with your changes and then > push again. See 'non-fast forward' section of 'git push --help'. I thing not pointing to 'git pull' in the message really defeats the purpose of the patch. I don't find an error message only telling me "go read the doc as you should have done from the beginning" really helps. -- Matthieu