No it's not. We also have this rule, and I so do it. But it's not "absolutely fine".
A reviewer might already have checked your branch before. And by changing your history, you remove the option for them to only review your latest changes.
The entire review must now be done all over.
Comments that were bound to a specific commit, are now gone as well.
Agreed. That's why I said "personal" feature branch, before it's touched or reviewed by anybody else.
Then again, I don't mind a force push to prevent commits like "oops forgot semicolon". Commits like that are pollution and won't help anybody in the future trying to look back in history. I usually remove them when a pull request is ready to be merged.
Comments are temporary anyway and no replacement for documentation.
After all it's about knowing what your doing. I prefer communication/education over arbitrary rules in my team.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Force pushing is absolutely fine in case of personal feature branches.
No it's not. We also have this rule, and I so do it. But it's not "absolutely fine".
A reviewer might already have checked your branch before. And by changing your history, you remove the option for them to only review your latest changes.
The entire review must now be done all over.
Comments that were bound to a specific commit, are now gone as well.
Agreed. That's why I said "personal" feature branch, before it's touched or reviewed by anybody else.
Then again, I don't mind a force push to prevent commits like "oops forgot semicolon". Commits like that are pollution and won't help anybody in the future trying to look back in history. I usually remove them when a pull request is ready to be merged.
Comments are temporary anyway and no replacement for documentation.
After all it's about knowing what your doing. I prefer communication/education over arbitrary rules in my team.