Antw: Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3)

From: Ulrich Windl <ulrich.windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
Date: Dec 4, 2017, 15:57 UTC
Message-ID: <5A25705C020000A1000292B0@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <AB9C836772CD4391A8866DC71103CCFE@PhilipOakley>

Hi Philip!

I'm unsure what you are asking for...

Ulrich

>>> "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> 04.12.17 0.30 Uhr >>>

From: "Junio C Hamano" <gitster@pobox.com>

Show 15 quoted lines

> "Philip Oakley" <philipoakley@iee.org> writes:
>
>> I think it was that currently you are on M, and neither A nor B are
>> ancestors (i.e. merged) of M.
>>
>> As Junio said:- "branch -d" protects branches that are yet to be
>> merged to the **current branch**.
>
> Actually, I think people loosened this over time and removal of
> branch X is not rejected even if the range HEAD..X is not empty, as
> long as X is marked to integrate with/build on something else with
> branch.X.{remote,merge} and the range X@{upstream}..X is empty.
>
> So the stress of "current branch" above you added is a bit of a
> white lie.

Ah, thanks. [I haven't had chance to check the code]

The man page does say: . -d . Delete a branch. The branch must be fully merged in its upstream . branch, or in HEAD if no upstream was set with --track . or --set-upstream.

It's whether or not Ulrich had joined the two aspects together, and if the doc was sufficient to help recognise the 'unmerged' issue. Ulrich? -- Philip