From: Junio C Hamano Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2026 16:50:43 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] branch: let --delete-merged find squash merged branches Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <03b187ae-bef2-426f-b6a4-def9f70c4a3f@gmail.com> Phillip Wood writes: > detection. It would be good to get a clear idea of what the tradeoffs of > the various approaches are before any more code is written. It sounds like a very sensible approach. At least the one-to-one part of the operation should learn from what Dscho did in range-diff, especially the part that does take similarity of the log messages and authorship information, instead of paying attention only to patch IDs. I am not convinced that one-to-one rebase implemented as a subset of squash merge would perform sufficiently well, either. From the user interface angle, it also is not clear to me if a single --delete-merged that enables all variants by default with individual knob to optionally disable one variant (squash) would be a good extensible one, when we may need to deal with the third (and other) kinds of ways to integrate your work without preserving the commit identity, like selective cherry-picks.