From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 121681F4B4 for ; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 20:08:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726109AbgINUH7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:07:59 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com ([173.228.157.52]:59330 "EHLO pb-smtp20.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726046AbgINUHx (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:07:53 -0400 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF5DA10485C; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:07:46 -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:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=sasl; bh=P68CxvWvwlo+NrXVREviflHF6V0=; b=KvYO0V1ZII9dqTlHgU7R 8QIjg4iju46XgiCi7uko7xcI9vixEMK3/w5JpQcoPUdnRbdqVHKxpIghbhA2yJNj C/+tfbFWFQsFsnlidlM+WTz+FoBc6hny17UswfejMj0p75tZcoTqe7skpHI5KZDy Ih7/xOM/rjp8B4WnzZTgO14= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s=sasl; b=nYHz6TGSdrbbipA3Nql1ememxgcdWxf+0AarxE8HxzOc8R B1ES+o6hxZzPZh8dNwCzgbQyYA55sq2wRtTw9cmc/xtXKQQEWZcMA2KDNL7IxQo3 XDoNXfNQtO3hyN/u/5fNt6KjNbIf2IbjWB977E1X/JZzjwaCcJjmnwPiHazYU= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 882DE10485B; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:07:46 -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-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2F5FD104857; Mon, 14 Sep 2020 16:07:41 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from junio@pobox.com) From: Junio C Hamano To: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Srinidhi Kaushik , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] push: make `--force-with-lease[=]` safer References: <20200904185147.77439-1-shrinidhi.kaushik@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 13:07:39 -0700 Message-ID: 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: F1B09DEE-F6C5-11EA-B5D4-F0EA2EB3C613-77302942!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Johannes Schindelin writes: > Hi Junio, > > On Thu, 10 Sep 2020, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Johannes Schindelin writes: >> >> >> 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'. > > You're right, `--force-if-merged` is a much better way to put it. I am pretty happy that Srinidhi chose 'included', which is what seems the best description without being a white-lie that is technically incorrect.