Re: Would a config var for --force-with-lease be useful?

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> writes:

> I.e. making plain --force-with-lease harder to use by hiding it behind a
> config option gives the user fewer options than with --force to recover.

I agree with that.  But I would consider it a good thing, if done
properly (i.e. suggest --force-with-lease that is not a lzzy form).

> So I think we should still recommend the longer and even safer variants
> of --force-with-lease, but being guaranteed to have the SHA-1 you just
> clobbered locally is *better*, and allows us to e.g. do this:
>
>     $ git push --force-with-lease
>     hint: You just clobbered <X> on <remote with <Y>. If you regret
>     hint: this you can (until the object gets pruned) do:
>     hint:     git push <remote> --force-with-lease=<refname>:<Y>

Until the object gets pruned, and until somebody else pushes there
to make the damage bigger, you can recover from a mistake with that
information.  It probably is a bug that the lazy force-with-lease
does not report what the remote tip you just overwrote was, and this
would help great deal.  It would be a good place to start.

One thing that I am still not clear how this line of thought truly
would help users is how to help them decide their answer to "If you
regret this".  An unthinking naïve user would say "of course I meant
it when I gave the option---why do you think I regret it?" without a
bit more hint, namely, "<Y> was taken from the remote tracking
branch, are you sure that is still what the newly prepared contents
you built to replace?  Did somebody clobber it while you are not
watching?"

These three lines however will be felt too loud by those who would
most benefit from them (i.e. those who do not know why they need
protection); I do not think advise.* to allow them to be squelched
would be appropriate.