Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"
- Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2017 10:38:42 +0200
- From: Stefan Haller <haller@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Tools that do an automatic fetch defeat "git push --force-with-lease"
Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > It might be possible to generate these lease tags prior to operations
> > which modify history and then maybe having a way to list them so you
> > can select which one you meant when you try to use force-with-lease..
> So yeah, I think that is the more interesting direction. I hadn't
> considered resolving the multiple-operation ambiguity at push time. But
> I guess it would be something like "you did a rebase on sha1 X at time
> T, and then one on Y at time T+N", and you pick which one you're
I think it's wrong to think about these leases as something that you
take before you start a rewindy operation. That's the wrong time to take
the lease; by that time, the remote tracking branch may already contain
new things that you haven't seen yet, so using that as a lease at that
time will overwrite those things later. You have to take the lease at a
time where you know that your local branch and the remote tracking
branch are up to date with each other, which is after pull and push. And
if you do that, there's no multiple-operation ambiguity to deal with at
> And I think that may be converging on the "integrate" refs that Stefan is
> talking about elsewhere (or some isomorphism of it).
Does it make things clearer if we don't use the term "integrate", but
call the config value in my proposal simply "branch.*.lease"?