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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 7, 2023, 18:44 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqy1jr8sul.fsf@gitster.g>
In-Reply-To: <82255166-49ac-3c10-1744-27d6d436822e@gmail.com>

Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:

Show 9 quoted lines

> Hi Alex
>
> On 06/07/2023 05:01, Alex Henrie wrote:
>> Also, don't put `git pull` in an awkward parenthetical, because
>> `git pull` can always be used to reconcile branches and is the normal
>> way to do so.
>
> This message would also benefit from adding explanation as to why this
> change is desirable.

Yes, at least some essence from the lengthy discussion we had in the review threads for the expected use cases deserve to be summarized to help future developers who run "git log" (and "git blame") to find this commit.

Unlike the [1/2] step, where the commands like "status" and "checkout" that are detached far away from the actual "push" are affected, this is exactly about "push has failed, now what" situation, where a change from "you must reconcile" to "if you want to reconcile, you could do this, but it may be that discarding the work on the other side is the right thing, if that is just a stale copy of what you are pushing" is very much welcome.

Show 11 quoted lines

> It makes the advice longer  but the user get a specific suggestion for
> their current situation rather than a generic suggestion to delete the
> remote changes without discussing the implications. In this case we
> know that it was the current branch that was rejected and so should
> fill in the branch name in the advice as well.
>
> My main issue with the changes in this series is that they seem to
> assume the user is (a) pushing a single branch and (b) they are the
> only person who works on that branch. That is a common but narrow case
> where force pushing is perfectly sensible but there are many other
> scenarios where suggesting "push --force" would not be a good idea.

Yup.  Thanks for a review.