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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 5, 2017, 15:17 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqa84ikj61.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPB=P5z7MA+TuVaFLUQQdOoJXUb74YxEPS6k4O+NorneVpLitg@mail.gmail.com>

Francesco Mazzoli <f@mazzo.li> writes:

Show 8 quoted lines

> So we would have something like
>
> * `push.disableForce`: config flag that disables `--force` and suggests
>     `--force-with-lease` instead;
> * `--disable-force` and `--no-disable-force`, config flags to tune the above
>     config parameter at will.
>
> What do you think?

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.

To me, a disableForce configuration that encourages use of either the best one or the worst one alone does not look like a step forward, unless we also have a change to disable the last form.