From: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:30:26 GMT
Subject: Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3)
Message-ID: <AB9C836772CD4391A8866DC71103CCFE@PhilipOakley>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1skcleo7.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

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