Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by sigi45 2648 days ago
Its not and it shouldn't.

I do often rebase on my local branch but i will communicate a force push on master to the whole team and will disable protection temporarily.

If thats the only reason, he should overthink his workflow.
2 comments
swish_bob 2648 days ago
People aren't talking about force pushing to master, they're talking about force pushing to another branch, but with master unprotected, and therefore, by accident, force pushing to master as well.
link
karlding 2647 days ago
Isn't that situation only possible if config.push is set to matching? As far as I know, it's been set to simple by default since Git 2.0 [0].

[0] https://git-scm.com/docs/git-config#Documentation/git-config...

link
d2p 2647 days ago
> Its not

It's not common to rebase?

> i will communicate a force push on master to the whole team and will disable protection temporarily

Isn't that exactly what this point was about? You have branch protection enabled for master because you think it's a good idea to avoid accidental force-pushes. These comments were exactly about not having the ability to protect branches.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing for/against.

link