The methodology with GIT is usually around never committing anything directly to master, rather branch and merge. Internally I have our github projects set up to prevent force pushes to master and to allow it on branches so that the developer working on that branch has the option of fixing things if there is an oops
I haven't seen the -force-with-lease before so I can't say how well it works, but that has definitely jumped to the top of my "commands to now use" -----Original Message----- From: Bertrand Delacretaz [mailto:bdelacre...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 8:49 AM To: dev <dev@sling.apache.org> Subject: Re: Git force push EXTERNAL On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:33 PM, Stefan Seifert <sseif...@pro-vision.de> wrote: > i would also vote for *not* allowing push --force.. +1, my understanding is that one can destroy history with that...which we don't want. I have never used --force-with-lease so far but according to [1] it only allows you to force-push if no-one else has pushed changes up to the remote in the interim. If that's correct (does anyone have experience with it?) I'd be in favor of allowing --force-with-lease but not --force. With our many repositories we often have a single committer working on a given repository for some time, in which case --force-with-lease could help, apparently. -Bertrand [1] https://developer.atlassian.com/blog/2015/04/force-with-lease/
