From: Junio C Hamano Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 16:57:27 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] branch: let --delete-merged find squash merged branches Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Junio C Hamano writes: > I would avoid a negative-sounding word like "irrelevant". Your work > is almost always relevant, at least to you. > > The purpose of the new feature is to find branches that the user no > longer needs to keep because they have been practically merged. > Perhaps --delete-integrated? I do not know. The naming matters, > and I hope somebody watching from the sidelines can suggest a better > alternative. > > For lack of a better alternative that I can suggest, I will use > "--delete-foo" for the remainder of this message. Here is a short list of candidates for "foo" I came up with. merged integrated subsumed absorbed included done Reusing the existing --delete-merged option by extending it as --delete-merged[=] is somewhat tempting. However, we frown upon options with optional values because our options by default allow option-arguments to be given as separate arguments. If we can, I would prefer to avoid doing so. Our documentation uses "integrated" to describe practically merging your work upstream, whether by merging, rebasing, or squash-merging. However, that word is a tad too long. "subsumed", "absorbed", and "included" are shorter alternatives, but none of them is familiar in our parlance. The word "done" may be a direct match to the mindset of our users. Once your branch is integrated upstream and you no longer need to keep pushing for its inclusion, you are "done" with it. I dunno. I hope others will suggest something much better than any of the above ;-)