Re: RFC: safer default for patch editing operations

On 25/09/2020 13:46, Ben Franksen wrote:

> Since 2.16 the --not-in-remote option is supported for all operations
> that edit the history: amend, rebase suspend, obliterate, and unrecord.
> 
> Should we make this the default behavior?

I'm weakly in favour.

> Now, if --not-in-remote becomes the default, how do we name the option
> that negates it? Simply dropping the "not" as in --in-remote is
> certainly confusing. OTOH something like --force is too general, it
> could mean lots of different things. More specific would be
> --also-in-remote or --even-in-remote. Or perhaps we want to invent a
> completely new name for the option.

--allow-in-remote ? But they're all a bit confusing. I think I prefer
--even-in-remote overall.

 Ganesh