I think sometimes this happens to reset the reviews. If the score gets to low, they just publish a new app. Or they fix an issue that people have been complaining about for a while. Maybe they want to increase ad spend and those 1 stars from three years ago make it hard to promote?
IME, review resets are definitely part of it, but not all. The other big one is "we lost control of the app namespace when we fired $vendor and while it may be ours (and sometimes we agreed to bad deals where it's not), we don't know how to get it back."
It's not really, but there are a couple minor differences in practice.
First, it assumes the name of your upstream repository is "origin" which is fine in most cases as that is what `git clone` defaults to naming the remote.
Second, using `HEAD` always pushes your current checked our branch to your remote with a remote branch of the same name. It's a neat trick to skip the "`git push` -> you need to set your upstream branch -> push command the git outputs" loop.
Lastly, `--force-with-lease` is a safer version of `--force` or `-f` because it tries to ensure that you don't overwrite history accidentally. The `--force-with-lease` flag will fail if a coworker for example pushed a commit to your branch that you didn't know about. Where a regular `--force` would just overwrite that change.
I assume that the command is meant to be "safe" and "foolproof", in that this command should always work.
Since the parent post recommends a lot of rebasing in their other commands, you'll need a `--force` or `--force-with-lease` to push new commits because they won't be "fast forwardable"
In case you don't know. This is a variation of the first paragraph of the Wheel of Time book series by Robert Jordan. Each book opens with a variation of this same paragraph
