Re: Re: Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3)

From: "Ulrich Windl" Hi! Sorry for the late response: On a somewhat not-up-to date manual: -d, --delete Delete a branch. The branch must be fully merged in its upstream branch, or in HEAD if no upstream was set with --track or

Antw: Re: Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3)

Hi! Sorry for the late response: On a somewhat not-up-to date manual: -d, --delete Delete a branch. The branch must be fully merged in its upstream branch, or in HEAD if no upstream was set with --track or --set-upstream. Maybe the topic of multiple

Re: Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3)

From: "Ulrich Windl" Hi Philip! I'm unsure what you are asking for... Ulrich Hi Ulrich, I was doing a retrospective follow up (of the second kind [1]). In your initial email https://public-inbox.org/git/5a1d70fd02a100029...@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de/

Antw: Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3)

Hi Philip! I'm unsure what you are asking for... Ulrich >>> "Philip Oakley" 04.12.17 0.30 Uhr >>> From: "Junio C Hamano" > "Philip Oakley" writes: > >> I think it was that currently you are on M, and neither A nor B are >>

Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3)

From: "Junio C Hamano" "Philip Oakley" writes: I think it was that currently you are on M, and neither A nor B are ancestors (i.e. merged) of M. As Junio said:- "branch -d" protects branches that are yet to be merged to the **current branch**.

Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3)

"Philip Oakley" writes: > I think it was that currently you are on M, and neither A nor B are > ancestors (i.e. merged) of M. > > As Junio said:- "branch -d" protects branches that are yet to be > merged to the **current branch**. Actually, I think people loosened this

Re: Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3)

From: "Ulrich Windl" <ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> To: <gits...@pobox.com> Cc: <git@vger.kernel.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 8:32 AM Subject: Antw: Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3) "Ulrich Windl" <ulrich.wi...@r

Re: Antw: Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3)

Hi Ulrich From: "Johannes Schindelin" <johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> To: "Ulrich Windl" <ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> Cc: <git@vger.kernel.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 12:27 PM Subject: Re: Antw: Re: bug deleting "unmerged" br

Re: Antw: Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3)

Hi Ulrich, On Wed, 29 Nov 2017, Ulrich Windl wrote: > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Ulrich Windl wrote: > > > >> During a rebase that turned out to be heavier than expected 8-( I > >> decided to keep the old branch by creating a temporary branch name to > >> the commit of the branch to rebase (which

Antw: Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3)

> "Ulrich Windl" writes: > >> I think if more than one branches are pointing to the same commit, >> one should be allowed to delete all but the last one without >> warning. Do you agree? > > That comes from a viewpoint that the only purpose "branch -d" exists

Antw: Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3)

> Hi Ulrich, > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Ulrich Windl wrote: > >> During a rebase that turned out to be heavier than expected 8-( I >> decided to keep the old branch by creating a temporary branch name to >> the commit of the branch to rebase (which was still the old commit ID at >> that time).

Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3)

"Ulrich Windl" writes: > I think if more than one branches are pointing to the same commit, > one should be allowed to delete all but the last one without > warning. Do you agree? That comes from a viewpoint that the only purpose "branch -d" exists in addition

Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3)

Hi Ulrich, On Tue, 28 Nov 2017, Ulrich Windl wrote: > During a rebase that turned out to be heavier than expected 8-( I > decided to keep the old branch by creating a temporary branch name to > the commit of the branch to rebase (which was still the old commit ID at > that time). > > When done