# Git branch deletion not based on HEAD branch anymore 3 messages from 2017-04-06 to 2017-04-07. Participants: Javier Domingo Cansino, Jeff King. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/45624 ## Javier Domingo Cansino, 2017-04-06 20:31 Subject: Git branch deletion not based on HEAD branch anymore Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CALZVapk4zxn-DSdMdy2q-Z0KvsBvx4MCSB5UDVOaBrBvAqw_AA%40mail.gmail.com ``` Hello, I have noticed that in the "latest" versions of git, `git branch -d branch` instead of refusing to delete a branch that hasn't been merged to HEAD, it now throws a warning and deleting the local branch if it's present in a remote. Example: ˋˋˋ > git branch -d command-runner warning: deleting branch 'command-runner' that has been merged to 'refs/remotes/origin/command-runner', but not yet merged to HEAD. Deleted branch command-runner (was 1716ed5). ˋˋˋ After diving in git blame for a while I have realized that "lately" refers to a commit done in 2009. Because the change is over 7 years old, I will explain what is my use case. The workflow I follow since I started with git is to start an exact replica of my working environment in a personal fork. Anything deleted locally is deleted remotely and viceversa. This allows me to move between work and home smoothly. I also use the default `git config push.default matching` My typical day starts and ends pulling master from the central repo, and `git branch -d`-ing all the branches I have in local. git would delete the ones that have been merged, and leave alone the ones that have been not been merged. Then I rebase all my branches and push the new master and rebased branches. Because all my local branches track my personal repo, all of them get deleted if I execute my scripts. I understand it's not possible / convenient anymore to go back, but would it be possible to have an option such as `--merged` to support the old usecase? -- Javier Domingo Cansino ``` ## Jeff King, 2017-04-07 06:38 Subject: Re: Git branch deletion not based on HEAD branch anymore Message-ID: <20170407063808.frjjclz7ksqgmtyt@sigill.intra.peff.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/20170407063808.frjjclz7ksqgmtyt%40sigill.intra.peff.net In-Reply-To: ``` On Thu, Apr 06, 2017 at 10:31:55PM +0200, Javier Domingo Cansino wrote: > I understand it's not possible / convenient anymore to go back, but > would it be possible to have an option such as `--merged` to support > the old usecase? There's "branch --merged" already. And in recent versions of git, the scriptable for-each-ref knows it, too. So you could do something like: git for-each-ref --format='delete %(refname)' --merged HEAD refs/heads/ | grep -v 'any-branches-you-want-saved' | git update-ref --stdin The "--merged" option to git-branch is only used for listing. In theory we could use it for selection in other operations, like "git branch -d --merged". But I'm not sure how you'd tell it _not_ to delete the branch that matches HEAD. -Peff ``` ## Javier Domingo Cansino, 2017-04-07 11:17 Subject: Re: Git branch deletion not based on HEAD branch anymore Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/CALZVapk1nhBv04QQSV9jOpg-KQxVE8wKgV9dgwm0m%2BJ3fxsD3g%40mail.gmail.com In-Reply-To: <20170407063808.frjjclz7ksqgmtyt@sigill.intra.peff.net> ``` > There's "branch --merged" already. And in recent versions of git, the > scriptable for-each-ref knows it, too. So you could do something like: > > git for-each-ref --format='delete %(refname)' --merged HEAD refs/heads/ | > grep -v 'any-branches-you-want-saved' | > git update-ref --stdin Yeah I wanted to avoid anything else that git branch -d, as it doesn't delete the currently checked out. I am not really familiar with plumbing commands. > The "--merged" option to git-branch is only used for listing. In theory > we could use it for selection in other operations, like "git branch -d > --merged". But I'm not sure how you'd tell it _not_ to delete the branch > that matches HEAD. Last time I checked git branch doesn't delete the currently checked out branch, does it? Adding the --merged to `git branch -d` would be awesome Javier ```