Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:

> Yeah, the auto-update of the tracking refs came later (so I think you
> could argue the bad interaction is my fault!).

Heh, I somehow thought it was somebody else.

> Hmm, true. I'd almost argue that --force-with-lease, at least in its
> default mode with no explicit lease source specified, should allow an
> update from X to Y to be a successful noop if the remote "somehow"
> already moved to Y.

I've already written the --force-with-lease that expects what you
have on your remote-tracking branch off as a gross misdesign that
should be deprecated in the longer term; I do not have a strong
opinion on the tweaks to be done to the feature until it gets
dropped ;-)

Reply via email to