On Feb 13, 2008 6:24 PM, Bill Lear <rael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wednesday, February 13, 2008 at 17:45:16 (-0800) David Symonds writes: > >On Feb 13, 2008 5:39 PM, Jay Soffian <jaysoffian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 1) git-branch -d <branchname> complains if <branchname> hasn't been > >> merged to HEAD. Shouldn't it really only complain if <branchname> > >> hasn't been merged into any local branch? i.e., as long as > >> <branchname> has been merged, why care to which branch? > > > >It's easy to mistype branch names, and you typically only delete them > >after you merge them into your current branch. If you're really sure, > >just pass -D instead of -d. > > How does that answer the question posed? If I have four branches, a, b1, b2 and c, and I've merged b2 into c (but planning to keep developing on b2), and just merged b1 into a (which I have checked out), then I probably only want to delete b1, not b2. The "current" branch is a useful notion because it significantly simplifies merging/rebasing operations. Dave. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
