Re: [PATCH 0/2] advise about force-pushing as an alternative to reconciliation

Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com> writes:

I think the description in the cover was prone to be misunderstood, but I think I got it now. Where you are pushing from your topic branch is your "publishing" branch that only you would push into, and the primary way you update it is by rebasing your local copy of it on the updated 'master' branch to keep up with others' work integrated into the shared 'master'.

In such a workflow, the way to update your "publishing" branch will normally be to force push to overwrite. And in this very narrow use case, where nobody else is pushing into your "publishing" branch, your remote-tracking branch would be always up-to-date with the remote repository and use of --force-with-lease that does not say which commit you expect there to be is safe. In fact, you do not even have to use --force-with-lease in such a use case, because its additional safety (relative to --force) relies on the assumption that you would be the only one who is pushing into the remote repository to update that branch---and at that point, --force without lease is just as good.

Thanks.