On 6 July 2017 at 21:13, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> By that logic, a hypothetical update to `--force` that makes 1/3 of
> the attempted forced push randomly would make it safer than the
> current `--force`, wouldn't it?
It would. However, this additional safety is not really meaningful to any
workfl
> On 5 Jul 2017, at 17:17, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> The take-away lesson that the earlier thread gave me was that the
> order in which the three options are ranked by their desirebility
> in the UI (and the order we would like to encourage users to use)
> is, from the most to the least preferrab
On 5 July 2017 at 09:43, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 11:34 PM, Francesco Mazzoli wrote:
>>
>> Could you clarify the danger you're referring to? E.g. give an example
>> of surprising --force-with-lease behavior that we do not want to
>> encoura
On 4 July 2017 at 19:51, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> People have been burned by the lazy "--force-with-lease" that does
> not say what object to expect there and forces the command to DWIM
> incorrectly what the remote's ref ought to be pointing at. This
> change encourages its use without the user b
The flag can be overridden with `--no-force-with-lease`, or by
passing the config via the command line.
Signed-off-by: Francesco Mazzoli
---
Documentation/config.txt | 5 +
Documentation/git-push.txt | 4 +++-
builtin/push.c | 3 +++
cache.h| 1 +
config.c
On 3 July 2017 at 23:47, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 03 2017, Francesco Mazzoli jotted:
>
> > The flag can be overridden with `--no-force-with-lease`, or by
> > passing the config via the command line.
>
> Thanks for hacking on this. A couple of thi
The flag can be overridden with `--no-force-with-lease`, or by
passing the config via the command line.
Signed-off-by: Francesco Mazzoli
---
Documentation/config.txt | 5 +
builtin/push.c | 3 +++
cache.h | 1 +
config.c | 4
environment.c
7 matches
Mail list logo
