¬ just serendipity 🍀 (not just serendipity)

TIL:

git push --force: This command forcefully pushes your changes to the remote branch, even if it results in overwriting or losing commits. It does not consider the current state of the remote branch. If someone else has pushed changes to the same branch in the meantime, their changes will be lost.

git push --force-with-lease: This command is a safer alternative to git push — force. It will only force push if the remote branch matches your expectations. It checks if someone else has pushed changes to the branch in the meantime. If the branch on the remote repository has not diverged (i.e., no new commits were pushed by others), your push will be allowed. If someone else has pushed changes, the push will be rejected, ensuring you do not accidentally overwrite someone else’s work.

(via).

How nice! Why is --force-with-lease not the default behavior?

Stack Overflow to the rescue…

I just learned about git push --force-with-lease. It’s pretty awesome. But, of course, I don’t use force that often, and so I’m worried that I might forget about this nifty feature the next time I need it. Is there a way to configure git so git push -f will automatically use --force-with-lease unless I intentionally override it with --no-force-with-lease?

…amen, you read my mind, OP!

The accepted answer, to my despair:

There currently is no way to configure git to always use force-with-lease instead of force. As such the next best available option is, as so often, to create an alias which serves this purpose.