Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] push: point to 'git pull' and 'git push --force' in case of non-fast forward

From: Matthieu Moy <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 20:35:16 +0200

Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]> writes:

> Instead of saying "Merge in", we could say "Integrate" to cover both
> practices.

I'm fine with both. I consider rebasing as a kind of merging, but ...

> I also happen to think that the mention of --force falls into the
> same category as "try shooting and then study if it hurgs".

Depending on the context. In the case of

git push
git commit --amend
git push

Pointing the user to 'git pull' is probably the thing which hurts the
most. And to me, the name --force already means "yes, I know what I'm
doing". My proposal was "[...] use git push --force to discard the
remote changes." which warns enough about the danger.

> So how about phrasing it like this?
>
>     Non-fast forward pushes were rejected because you would discard remote
>     changes you have not seen.  Integrate them with your changes and then
>     push again. See 'non-fast forward' section of 'git push --help'.

I thing not pointing to 'git pull' in the message really defeats the
purpose of the patch. I don't find an error message only telling me
"go read the doc as you should have done from the beginning" really
helps.

-- 
Matthieu