[pjc50]

"Force push" is something that should be restricted to a very few senior people anyway; once you do that, you can't rewrite shared history any more and a lot of the worries go away.

[vundercind]

This is a great way to get me to clutter the shared repo with throwaway branches that I’ll later replace (deleting the old one—if you let me).

[pjc50]

This is fine! This is a normal part of several popular git workflows. After all, a branch is just a pointer to a commit.

(Our workplace has a mix of github flow, which is one branch per PR: https://docs.github.com/en/get-started/using-github/github-f... ; Atlassian Gitflow https://www.atlassian.com/git/tutorials/comparing-workflows/... ; and the completely different Gerrit flow which ends up very rebase and amend heavy: https://gerrit-review.googlesource.com/Documentation/intro-g... )

[vundercind]

I thought you meant blocking all force-push. Shared branches should absolutely be protected (with an “in case of emergency, break glass” option)