Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] advise about force-pushing as an alternative to reconciliation

From: Junio C Hamano <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2023 22:30:09 -0700

Alex Henrie <[email-masked]> writes:

> I hope that's more clear now. Please let me know if it's not.

I think the description in the cover was prone to be misunderstood,
but I think I got it now.  Where you are pushing from your topic
branch is your "publishing" branch that only you would push into,
and the primary way you update it is by rebasing your local copy of
it on the updated 'master' branch to keep up with others' work
integrated into the shared 'master'.

In such a workflow, the way to update your "publishing" branch will
normally be to force push to overwrite.  And in this very narrow use
case, where nobody else is pushing into your "publishing" branch,
your remote-tracking branch would be always up-to-date with the
remote repository and use of --force-with-lease that does not say
which commit you expect there to be is safe.  In fact, you do not
even have to use --force-with-lease in such a use case, because its
additional safety (relative to --force) relies on the assumption
that you would be the only one who is pushing into the remote
repository to update that branch---and at that point, --force
without lease is just as good.

Thanks.