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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jul 6, 2017, 19:13 UTC
Message-ID: <xmqqy3s1e5uw.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <EA42AB04-D538-4B4A-BC19-CAE9A80EEA76@mazzo.li>

Francesco Mazzoli <f@mazzo.li> writes:

> Moreover, it seems to me that the problem `--force-with-lease` is
> just one of marketing. `--force-with-lease` is strictly more "safe"
> than `--force` in the sense that it'll reject some pushes that `--force`
> will let through.

By that logic, a hypothetical update to `--force` that makes 1/3 of the attempted forced push randomly would make it safer than the current `--force`, wouldn't it?

When third-party tools fetch and update remote-tracking branches behind the users' back, the safety based on the stability of remote-tracking branches are defeated. And the biggest problem is that the way `--force-with-lease` misbehaves---it is not like it randomly and mistakenly stops the push that could go through; it lets through what shouldn't.

See the other patch I sent just now---with something like that patch that lets those like you, who know their remote-tracking branches are reliable, use the lazy form, while disabling it by default for others (until they examine their situation and perhaps disable the problematic auto-fetching) in place, I do not think it is a bad idea to advertise --force-with-lease a safer option than --force (because those for whom it is not safer will not be able to use it).