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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Sep 10, 2020, 14:46 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqsgbpr8oc.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2009101220400.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

Show 7 quoted lines

>> 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'.