Re: [PATCH] branch: let --delete-merged find squash merged branches
- From
D. Ben Knoble <ben.knoble@gmail.com>
- Date
- Sep 29, 2026, 15:28 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CALnO6CC4fS0LWe6ta7B-C3dQXSjfYhab-e=EHdneRRqfa9mAZw@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <CAHwyqnXLAQgTen2nu6xX63ch7Z9V8kZ-c3zbZgw_xwEVYaz=oA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Sep 29, 2026 at 9:53 AM Harald Nordgren <haraldnordgren@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 13 quoted lines
> > > Anyway, I can see how this would all be fairly expensive---on one repo > > I work in, git-range-diff can be somewhat slow depending on how many > > commits are in the range, I think. I don't know if it's worth trying > > to state that for folks, though? If we ever make improvements to > > performance, we'd have to remember to remove the "this may be slow" > > text. > > It was much slower in my first iterations, so running this on my local > Git repo now does not feel painfully slow. Although slower than > without this feature. > > We might hide it behind a feature flag?
I could imagine wanting a CSV-style value for the option, like "--delete-merged=squashed,rebased" vs. "--delete-merged=merged" (current default), or something. But I'd have to think about whether I'm suggesting that only to work around performance or to also support actual use cases. Mostly I think people just want to go "gah, delete merged branches" and not think about it further… hm.
-- D. Ben Knoble