From: Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Oct 2026 18:50:03 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] branch: let --delete-merged default to every upstream
Message-ID: <CAHwyqnXuXWYWZ_c364-CpY8tmXjeTwGgYY=X8TtGs+2XbLbWHg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <79a242b0-ea1a-40d0-b1d2-8ef029fb0521@gmail.com>

> >> 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.

That is fair. And you should know I am very thankful for the help and
the sometimes harsh feedback.


Harald