Am 09.07.2013 22:37, schrieb Junio C Hamano: > Johannes Sixt <j...@kdbg.org> writes: > >> Am 09.07.2013 21:53, schrieb Junio C Hamano: >>> +--lockref:: >>> +--lockref=<refname>:: >>> +--lockref=<refname>:<expect>:: >>> ... >>> +This is meant to make `--force` safer to use. >> >> This is a contradiction. "--force" means "I mean it, dude", and not "I >> mean it sometimes". It would make sense if this sentence were "This is >> meant to make `+refspec` safer to use." > > No, this *IS* making --force safer by letting you to say in addition > to --force alone which is blind, add --lockref to defeat it. > > I do not see any good reason to change the samentics of "+refspec" > for something like this. "+refspec" and "--force refspec" have > meant the same thing forever.
So what? They still mean the same thing as long as --lockref is not used. > If --lockref adds safety to +refspec, > the same safety should apply to "--force refspec". No. --force means "I know what I am doing, no safety needed, thank you". By applying the safety to --force as well, you lose it as the obvious tool that overrides the safety. -- Hannes -- 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
