From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS31976 209.132.180.0/23 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID shortcircuit=no autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7D05202AE for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:17:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751700AbdGEPRP (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jul 2017 11:17:15 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-f177.google.com ([209.85.192.177]:32975 "EHLO mail-pf0-f177.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751664AbdGEPRO (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jul 2017 11:17:14 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-f177.google.com with SMTP id e7so131302255pfk.0 for ; Wed, 05 Jul 2017 08:17:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id :user-agent:mime-version; bh=4tpW1uEbbuPm9MLPROGMDQfIgi01rU7c0najMxc8Yuc=; b=e9uPSx3LynVAxgngynKFJnP53Am9lgF/LiXn5sC3ZhA80P+mY20YZA9N/YAi+YPGAQ 2dN3/bTMs3Ya3yJQOZt6xzJRMTPH+V4hPa28a8AIfQww3MFetehNStEpimC/e+zzlTEt oHZp/Fw3Aq7pIPcglv8uubTF/uucQcYdn3TDST5dK1hXM1R0BnDLXb8HBoD7d+P/ylZP bSkJqCMKV47zyNY2KZeFeAHpUDyVeqIKVgztLAzBXJ08WYtnISYXBu1B9KEyn7/IkmPZ XvlkoRXf2n1bB/ifFL6/OdMRtei2lamEjBPmhzN1zhH6bqhhN0rty49r6RsSfshFHDVK pYGA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:from:to:cc:subject:references:date :in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent:mime-version; bh=4tpW1uEbbuPm9MLPROGMDQfIgi01rU7c0najMxc8Yuc=; b=X0T4Id/Kz9zHPtKVUcWG5Lzc6EAXcEpvFyku8Ko+ZdC1+6Eig4IuIWjWHvY6Zyj1Wr XdLxGNTV1hjE5nS/V/W2Hx5iU+bfDAf/pG2t48goAArAqH+Z2zhR0+JjPPe/G1Mwk8kx TaHroYjv6KXzpxs4OPPQ1gR1lR9Ccf0u2xguP4LHkuFZ8li6EpjYsOoQh4lXxgpOtkwW 3EAysa71XQorTxdm1OBzyaJGv99ChUV2DPYq/s7vG3038KkxpQKKmbgoa01nsJxOUmYk xMi9EMm6KdYgdKmeuzvNSq4RRBvlVyC6U7D8eCCR5GGybu757DNEmGu6w1ZwM/zUKyVi +SvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110sMfcoHvfUhT08IAhtrPzc+FyaRKaODI23ckGiyfKp8Y/N0c/i yu+fMqlRRhP9Lg== X-Received: by 10.98.74.194 with SMTP id c63mr20555320pfj.58.1499267833183; Wed, 05 Jul 2017 08:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2620:0:1000:8622:ad13:9505:c2bc:e887]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id l3sm46320596pfk.34.2017.07.05.08.17.11 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Jul 2017 08:17:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Junio C Hamano To: Francesco Mazzoli Cc: Git Mailing List Subject: Re: [PATCH] push: add config option to --force-with-lease by default. References: <1499116727-757-1-git-send-email-f@mazzo.li> Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2017 08:17:10 -0700 In-Reply-To: (Francesco Mazzoli's message of "Wed, 5 Jul 2017 10:04:32 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Francesco Mazzoli writes: > So we would have something like > > * `push.disableForce`: config flag that disables `--force` and suggests > `--force-with-lease` instead; > * `--disable-force` and `--no-disable-force`, config flags to tune the above > config parameter at will. > > What do you think? 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 preferrable: - "--force-with-lease=:" that is safer than "--force"; - "--force" that is known to be dangerous, and does not pretend to be anything but; - "--force-with-lease" that pretends to be safer but is not. The last form should eventually be eliminated, as there is no way to correctly intuit what the expected object should be. To me, a disableForce configuration that encourages use of either the best one or the worst one alone does not look like a step forward, unless we also have a change to disable the last form.