On 07/03/2013 12:11 PM, Johan Herland wrote: > On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Jonathan del Strother > <maill...@steelskies.com> wrote: >> I'm struggling to think of instances where I wouldn't want this >> CAS-like behaviour. Wouldn't it be better to make it the default when >> pushing, and allowing the current behaviour with "git push >> --blind-force" or something? > > I believe I agree with you. I guess the reason this hasn't come up > before is that by far most of the pushes we do are either > fast-forwarding, or pushing into a non-shared repo (e.g. my own public > repo), and this safety only really applies when we're forcing a > non-fast-forward push into a shared repo...
I didn't see Jonathan's original email but I was having exactly the same though as him (and was even going to propose the same option name). Non-ff pushing without knowing what you are going to overwrite is irresponsible in most scenarios, and (if backwards-compatibility concerns can be overcome) I think it would be quite prudent to forbid a non-ff push if there is no local remote-tracking branch that is up-to-date at the time of the push. Circumventing that check should require some extra-super-force option. So yes, I very much like the general idea of the RFD and personally would lean towards making it stronger and default, at the 2.0 transition if necessary. Michael -- Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu http://softwareswirl.blogspot.com/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
