On Thu, Aug 30, 2018 at 3:38 AM Jeff King <p...@peff.net> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 05:20:24PM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > For consistency with "add -f -f", which allows a missing but locked > > worktree path to be re-used, allow "move -f -f" to override a lock, > > as well, as a convenience. > > I don't have a strong opinion on this one, as I have never used > "worktree mv" myself. :)
I don't have strong feelings about this either (nor about "remove -f -f"). > But anytime I see "-f -f", I have to wonder what "-f" does. In this > case, nothing. Is there some future lesser forcing we might use it for? I had the same concern. A single --force probably ought to be sufficient (given that there is no other meaning presently for a single --force), but it somehow seemed wrong to override a lock with a single --force when the other commands demand specifying it twice. The strictness could always be downgraded later to require only a single --force if it becomes obvious that that makes more sense.
