Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] remote: advise about force-pushing as an alternative to reconciliation

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 12, 2023, 15:18 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqo7khupjh.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <CAMMLpeTNMaVk7M2nLSJJzDMWPDVdyOr27Ae2-Usky5tW-dRqJQ@mail.gmail.com>

Alex Henrie <alexhenrie24@gmail.com> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> Just to be sure that we're on the same page, when I said "I thought we
> just agreed that we don't need to mention force-pushing..." and you
> replied "I do not think so", were you only saying that you think that
> changes to `git commit` are essential, or were you also saying that we
> have not come to an agreement about whether to include force-pushing
> advice in this message?

None of the above ;-)

With that "I do not think so", I meant that I do not agree with "I guess you're saying that we'd still be over-encouraging `git pull`" that was in your message. In the message you were responding to, I was saying that the time the user runs `git commit` is not a good time for the user to decide how to eventually update the remote target, and it does not matter which one we encourage more between "`git pull [--rebase]` then `git push`" and "`git push --force`".

I am fine dropping patch [1/2]; we would not be touching output from "git status", "git commit", or "git checkout", and "we should not talk about 'git pull' (or how the eventual remote update should go, for that matter) when we notice that the base of the user's branch has become stale" becomes totally out of the scope of this topic. I think that we all are in agreement that [2/2] is the more important part of this topic, as it more directly improves the guidance for the end-users when their "push" triggers the non-ff check.

Thanks.