From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <git-owner@vger.kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18])
	by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 899731F4B4
	for <e@yhbt.net>; Tue,  8 Sep 2020 19:29:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1732242AbgIHT3y (ORCPT <rfc822;e@yhbt.net>);
        Tue, 8 Sep 2020 15:29:54 -0400
Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com ([173.228.157.53]:52793 "EHLO
        pb-smtp21.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1731025AbgIHP7P (ORCPT <rfc822;git@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 8 Sep 2020 11:59:15 -0400
Received: from pb-smtp21.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1])
        by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7870EC329;
        Tue,  8 Sep 2020 11:58:58 -0400 (EDT)
        (envelope-from junio@pobox.com)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc
        :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version
        :content-type; s=sasl; bh=XefId0Xo1u2w+QJHRkoBs9Q3xKY=; b=o73QH6
        dwJYpXH3rC1ENmbAF8GNFiSBkNa8Te1qc4nT5lq50J48GzTyDFAlb2OC4TBaBPfY
        3GhBcqrZHA3W2YdIbCUvNRUxUtGK1dlbugiQPZZaoc4HX6YitEIzhHgfahCmhusW
        TXbK83zg5hjhTETNZHfygAvhSNySp5kTwAE6E=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc
        :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version
        :content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=KtRhibprkW5QX8hX5EQHgZ6Ee5ovfTZQ
        /M0sp1FXUwOyiMzzrUzRSnT8DzU6jIKuQU83ICAprQDtmADEo16od56w0aE91lr8
        h5owRJehioR2auGdAVs6mQIiTuxlhhrb7Ad/rPDhjFHDHQlhWGvEhWhPwKtwzbWN
        P/xNgdk1uS8=
Received: from pb-smtp21.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1])
        by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A03BCEC328;
        Tue,  8 Sep 2020 11:58:58 -0400 (EDT)
        (envelope-from junio@pobox.com)
Received: from pobox.com (unknown [34.75.7.245])
        (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
        (No client certificate requested)
        by pb-smtp21.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DF236EC326;
        Tue,  8 Sep 2020 11:58:55 -0400 (EDT)
        (envelope-from junio@pobox.com)
From:   Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To:     Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Cc:     Srinidhi Kaushik <shrinidhi.kaushik@gmail.com>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] push: make `--force-with-lease[=<ref>]` safer
References: <20200904185147.77439-1-shrinidhi.kaushik@gmail.com>
        <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2009072119350.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet>
Date:   Tue, 08 Sep 2020 08:58:53 -0700
In-Reply-To: <nycvar.QRO.7.76.6.2009072119350.56@tvgsbejvaqbjf.bet> (Johannes
        Schindelin's message of "Mon, 7 Sep 2020 21:45:18 +0200 (CEST)")
Message-ID: <xmqqwo14z2de.fsf@gitster.c.googlers.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.3 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 330CE5E2-F1EC-11EA-86CF-843F439F7C89-77302942!pb-smtp21.pobox.com
Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <git.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org

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

> Now, to be honest, I thought that this mode would merit a new option
> rather than piggy-backing on top of `--force-with-lease`. The reason is
> that `--force-with-lease` targets a slightly different use case than mine:
> it makes sure that we do not overwrite remote refs unless we already had a
> chance to inspect them.
>
> In contrast, my workflow uses `git pull --rebase` in two or more separate
> worktrees, e.g. when developing a patch on two different Operating
> Systems, I frequently forget to pull (to my public repository) on one
> side, and I want to avoid force-pushing in that case, even if VS Code (or
> I, via `git remote update`) fetched the ref (but failing to rebase the
> local branch on top of it).
>
> So I think that the original `--force-with-lease` and the mode you
> implemented target subtly different use cases that are both valid, and
> therefore I would like to request a separate option for the latter.

I tend to agree that that particular use case does not fit what the
"force with lease" option is meant to solve.  It should be a different
option, as you do not even want to be forcing.

But probably I am not getting your use case well enough to give a
good name suggestion.  "git push" without any form of "force" would
safely fail in your "I rebased on one side, and the other one is now
out of sync" situation already, so...