Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> This is probably one sensible step forward, so let's queue it as-is.
>
> But with reservations for longer-term future direction. Stepping
> back a bit, when 'foo' is not fully merged and the user used "branch
> -d" on it, is it sensible for us to suggest use of "branch -D"?
>
> Especially now this is a "hint" to help less experienced folks, it
> may be helpful to suggest how the user can answer "If you are sure
> you want to delete" part. As this knows what unique commits on the
> branch being deleted are about to be lost, one way to do so may be
> to tell the user about them ("you are about to lose 'branch: error
> description when deleting a not fully merged branch' and other 47
> commits that are not merged the target branch 'main'", for example).
>
> Another possibility is to suggest merging the branch into the
> target, instead of suggesting a destructive "deletion", but I
> suspect that it goes too far second-guessing the end-user intention.
The longer-term concerns aside, if you are inclined, we might want
to have this as a two step series, where [1/2] does a clean-up of
existing source file, i.e. losing the unwanted leading space from "
enum advice_type {" in advice.h and sort the advice.*:: list in
Documentation/config/advice.txt. It is optional to sort the
advice_setting[] list in advice.c and "enum advice_type" in
advice.h, as they are not end-user facing, and we should be using
the defined constant without relying on their exact values. But
keeping the config/advice.txt sorted would help readers more easily
locate which configuration variable to use to squelch a message.
And [2/2] does the rest.
Also I forgot that in the version I queued, I fixed the title to
branch: make the advice to force-deleting a conditional one
Thanks.
