Add force with lease to the advanced push options

[EbenZhang]

Fixes #2955

[pmiossec]

I really like this option to be merge into GitExtensions. To tell you my life, today is the first time I really mess the central repository at work.
After spending quite some time helping a colleague on his computer, I come back to mine to continue what I did. I force push with GitExtensions what I thought was my personal feature branch. But in fact, I was in the master branch , just to realize what I did (3 commits lost but finally recovered!) :(

If GitExtensions would have the --force-with-lease option, it would have prevented me to do this mistake. So, I will be really pleased to see this PR merged.

Thanks @EbenZhang (for this PR and for the others!)

But is it possible to do 2 things :

• switch the place of the 2 options. I think that "force-with-lease" should be the first under the mouse i.e. the first presented because that's the less dangerous otherwise people will check the "force" because they just know this one
• put tooltips to explain the 2 options because a very few know this option (and that's the one that should be preferred!)

[EbenZhang]

@pmiossec Your suggestion sounds great!

[GrahamTheCoder]

Maybe "Force with lease is a safer way to force push. It ensures you only overwrite work that you have seen in your local repository."

[EbenZhang]

Yours sounds more accurate.

[SeanFeldman]

Out of curiosity, this has is ready for merge, but never happened. What's preventing this to be merged?
Thank you.

[EbenZhang]

I think they only want to merge bug fixes not features. Maybe we should have a branch for features.

[vbjay]

https://github.com/gitextensions/gitextensions/wiki/Project-Workflow

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:48 PM EbenZhang notifications@github.com wrote:

I think they only want to merge bug fixes not features. Maybe we should
have a branch for features.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2991 (comment)
.

[SeanFeldman]

@EbenZhang looks like you've done everything except the last step: a screenshot :)

@vbjay is that it?

[KindDragon]

I don't like two checkboxes for force push, because of that I add it only to push popup dialog.

[pmiossec]

Yes but because of that, it's a feature hard to discover! I only found out the day I made a mistake. I think, I highly prefer to show 'force-with-lease' by default instead of 'force' to prevent mistakes. And propose force only if it fails (It could be an idea to never propose it because I don't see where 'force' could be useful over 'force-with-lease'. And in these exceptional cases, we could fall back to command line) . My point of view is that 'force-with-lease' is a lot better practice than 'force' and for that, it should be put forward and be the default way to do a "force"...

[vbjay]

I agree. If they are pushing tags then alert them and get their consent to
do a force and then ask are you sure dialog. If not, use lease.

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 6:23 AM Philippe Miossec notifications@github.com
wrote:

Yes but because of that, it's a feature hard to discover! I only found out
the day I made a mistake.

I think, I highly prefer to show 'force-with-lease' by default instead of
'force' to prevent mistakes.

And propose force only if it fails (It could be an idea to never propose it
because I don't see where 'force' could be useful over 'force-with-lease'.
And in these exceptional cases, we could fall back to command line) .

My point of view is that 'force-with-lease' is a lot better practice than
'force' and for that, it should be put forward and be the default way to do
a "force"...

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2991 (comment)

[EbenZhang]

rebased on top of the latest master to solve conflicts

[Do-do-new]

Would really like to see it merged, along with left-panel.
Thanks @EbenZhang !

[SeanFeldman]

Is there a way to specify that the default for push in GitExtensions should be --force-with-lease? Relying on setting manually a checkbox is not very reliable.

[pmiossec]

@SeanFeldman Are you sure you want to set --force-with-lease the default option when you push?
It makes no sense for me because if you ever fetched the commits of other developper, you could end overwriting the remote history and loose history (which is ironic because this option was introduced with the goal to not loose history inadvertently!)

[vbjay]

Yep. You only want to do this when you want to force a push. It has some safety so that you won't overwrite any commits that are in the remote but not in your repo. It will overwrite the history for commits that already existed. https://developer.atlassian.com/blog/2015/04/force-with-lease/ This should only be used when needed.

…

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017, 4:57 PM Philippe Miossec ***@***.***> wrote: @SeanFeldman <https://github.com/SeanFeldman> Are you sure you want to set --force-with-lease the default option when you push? It makes no sense for me because if you ever fetched the commits of other developper, you could end overwriting the remote history and loose history (which is ironic because this option was introduced with the goal to not loose history inadvertently!) — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2991 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADdhsRFaQdopCs1TowKzpIoNj26g2fLsks5rc3TTgaJpZM4GS8bq> .

[GrahamTheCoder]

I think the thing still missing is from the dialog that pops up from a normal conflicting push - which offers only a force push, not force with lease iirc

[pmiossec]

In fact the pop-up is doing a '--force-with-lease' even if it's not displayed clearly...

[SeanFeldman]

@pmiossec what I meant is to have a single "force" option, and to be able to configure what's done by default when and if push is force. SourceTree does it that way. They allow to configure the default behavior for forced push, either a regular --force or --force-with-lease.