On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 02:44:00PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > 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 ;-)
Well, that part I certainly agree with. ;) -Peff
