# Proposalö git push -F 4 messages from 2021-03-02 to 2021-08-24. Participants: XonqNopp, Junio C Hamano, Johannes Schindelin, Xavier Morel. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/55241 ## XonqNopp, 2021-03-02 12:35 Subject: Proposalö git push -F Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CAJU-ojOhSpGraS%3DCwy%3DkMNxNgN%3DT%3Do7Eq-BxcAfSLHMzmtAm9Q%40mail.gmail.com ``` Hi there, Thanks for everything you do, git is really an awesome tool and I enjoy using it! I have discovered some months ago that it is more safe to force a push with git push --force-with-lease But since then I keep wondering: why is this not the default? Maybe we should have --force (which would be with lease) and --force-without-lease? That would be more logical for unaware users... However, I would completely understand your reticence to change this. I just want to propose to change the shortcuts: * "git push --force" shortcut would become "git push -F" * "git push --force-with-lease" would use the shortcut "git push -f" This is just an idea of mine, I wanted to share it with you. Feel free to use it or not... Cheers :-) XonqNopp ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2021-03-03 06:38 Subject: Re: Proposalö git push -F Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/xmqqim68lp20.fsf%40gitster.c.googlers.com In-Reply-To: ``` XonqNopp writes: > I have discovered some months ago that it is more safe to force a push with > git push --force-with-lease > > But since then I keep wondering: why is this not the default? Because the form "--force-with-lease=" is a strict improvement over "--force", but the lazy "guess where the other end should be" form, i.e. "--force-with-lease" alone, is worse than "--force" in that it gives users false sense of security without offering the safety the "lease" mechanism gives. ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2021-03-04 10:02 Subject: Re: Proposalö git push -F Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2103041045420.57%40tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet In-Reply-To: ``` Hi, On Tue, 2 Mar 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote: > XonqNopp writes: > > > I have discovered some months ago that it is more safe to force a push with > > git push --force-with-lease > > > > But since then I keep wondering: why is this not the default? > > Because the form "--force-with-lease=" is a > strict improvement over "--force", but the lazy "guess where the > other end should be" form, i.e. "--force-with-lease" alone, is worse > than "--force" in that it gives users false sense of security > without offering the safety the "lease" mechanism gives. To add to that: some tools helpfully fetch in the background, therefore remote-tracking branches are updated _without_ the user being aware of it. In this instance, `--force-with-lease` is very dangerous. We did introduce the `--force-if-includes` option, but it seems that we made this option _not_ imply `--force-with-lease`, which makes it an unwieldy `git push --force-with-lease --force-if-includes `, which admittedly not even _I_ type, and I really would benefit from this option. Maybe it is time to admit that `--force-if-includes` should imply `--force-with-lease`, and then add `-F` as a shortcut? Ciao, Johannes ``` ## Xavier Morel, 2021-08-24 10:23 Subject: Re: Proposalö git push -F Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/c49da491-f8a3-440f-54e2-295be8dbcfd7%40odoo.com In-Reply-To: ``` > Because the form "--force-with-lease=" is a > strict improvement over "--force", but the lazy "guess where the > other end should be" form, i.e. "--force-with-lease" alone, is worse > than "--force" in that it gives users false sense of security > without offering the safety the "lease" mechanism gives. That seems like a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good. Generaly, "force with lease" is a better behaviour than "force". It will not catch all usage errors, but it will catch lots: again last week colleagues had issues which would had been caught by caught by using "--force-with-lease" instead" of "-f", but of course "-f" is "the default" in rebase-based workflows, what with being so short and sweet. I found XonqNopp's proposal as I was planning to post a similar message, though stricter: I don't think `--force` deserves a short form at all, I believe `-f` should be progressively migrated over to alias to `force-with-lease` as it's a significantly better default behaviour, and the odd *need* for `--force` (of which I can't personnally remember one) can be typed out in its entirety. For the vast majority of users, all it will do is catch genuine errors. For a small minority it will have no effect[0]. And for an infinitesimal number it will be unhelpful as `--force` without lease or inclusion is genuinely what they were looking for. I genuinely do not understand what `force-if-includes` does from reading the manpage and just learned that it exists from Johannes Schindelin's message, it might be an even better default behaviour for `-f`. Either way I think `-f` should not, ultimately, alias to `--force`. My idea there was to introduce a setting initially defaulting to `false` and a warning about the migration (triggered on `-f` when that setting is unset), then a few versions later flip the default to `true`. [0] and I would expect users of tools which helpfully fetch in the background to not be using the CLI, and thus not be impacted by this change. ```