From: Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2026 18:42:56 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch: let --delete-merged default to every upstream
Message-ID: <79a242b0-ea1a-40d0-b1d2-8ef029fb0521@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHwyqnXN=DZ_EzfTfxZ_==8HS7zX25NKoQw58Ou6HZELP_n+Qg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Harald

On 04/10/2026 14:16, Harald Nordgren wrote:
>> With hindsight maybe
>>
>>          git branch --delete-merged [<upstream>...] -- [<branch>...]
>>
>> and
>>
>>          git branch --forked [<upstream>...] -- [<branch>...]
>>
>> would have been a better design. That's the sort of design mistake that
>> is much more likely to happen when a contributor sends an endless stream
>> of patches because they're eager to get something merged, rather than
>> engaging in a thoughtful discussion with the reviewer.
> 
> I appreciate all the help here, but it's not necessary to throw blame
> either way. It sours the collaboration.
I'm sorry if it sounded like I was blaming you. Getting a patch series 
merged is a collaborative effort and any issues we discover later are 
the collective responsibility of all those involved. I do though think 
it is helpful to think about what we can do to try and avoid design 
mistakes and feel that spending a bit more time discussing things and a 
bit less time re-rolling patches would help. I also think that would 
likely end up with things getting merged sooner as, if we've had a 
reasonably detailed discussion about the design and implementation, 
we're likely to have ironed out a lot of potential problems earlier in 
the evolution of the patch series.

Thanks

Phillip