From: "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
To: <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Antw: Re: bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 09:32:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5A1E70AA020000A100029175@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqtvxd6gu9.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
> "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de> 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 to "branch -D" is to protect objects from "gc". Those
> who added the safety feature may have shared that view originally,
> but it turns out that it protects another important thing you are
> forgetting.
>
> Imagine that two topics, 'topicA' and 'topicB', were independently
> forked from 'master', and then later we wanted to add a feature that
> depends on these two topics. Since the 'feature' forked, there may
> have been other developments, and we ended up in this topology:
>
> ---o---o---o---o---o---M
> \ \
> \ o---A---o---F
> \ /
> o---o---o---o---B
>
> where A, B and F are the tips of 'topicA', 'topicB' and 'feature'
> branches right now [*1*].
>
> Now imagine we are on 'master' and just made 'topicB' graduate. We
> would have this topology.
>
> ---o---o---o---o---o---o---M
> \ \ /
> \ o---A---o---F /
> \ / /
> o---o---o---o---B
>
> While we do have 'topicA' and 'feature' branches still in flight,
> we are done with 'topicB'. Even though the tip of 'topicA' is
> reachable from the tip of 'feature', the fact that the branch points
> at 'A' is still relevant. If we lose that information right now,
> we'd have to go find it when we (1) want to further enhance the
> topic by checking out and building on 'topicA', and (2) want to
> finally get 'topicA' graduate to 'master'.
>
> Because removal of a topic (in this case 'topicB') is often done
> after a merge of that topic is made into an integration branch,
> "branch -d" that protects branches that are yet to be merged to the
> current branch catches you if you said "branch -d topic{A,B}" (or
> other equivalent forms, most likely you'd have a script that spits
> out list of branches and feed it to "xargs branch -d").
>
> So, no, I do not agree.
Hi!
I can follow your argumentation, but I fail to see that your branches A and B point to the same commit (which is what I was talking about). So my situation would be:
o---oA,B
I still think I could safely remove either A or B, even when the branch (identified by the commit, not by the name) is unmerged. What did I miss?
Regards,
Ulrich
>
>
> [Footnotes]
>
> *1* Since the 'feature' started developing, there were a few commits
> added to 'topicB' but because the feature does not depend on
> these enhancements to that topic, B is ahead of the commit that
> was originally merged with the tip of 'topicA' to form the
> 'feature' branch.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-11-29 8:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-11-28 14:21 bug deleting "unmerged" branch (2.12.3) Ulrich Windl
2017-11-28 15:32 ` Johannes Schindelin
2017-11-29 8:09 ` Antw: " Ulrich Windl
2017-11-29 12:27 ` Johannes Schindelin
2017-12-02 20:52 ` Philip Oakley
2017-11-29 0:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-11-29 8:32 ` Ulrich Windl [this message]
2017-12-02 20:56 ` Philip Oakley
2017-12-03 2:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-12-03 23:30 ` Philip Oakley
2017-12-04 15:57 ` Antw: " Ulrich Windl
2017-12-08 20:26 ` Philip Oakley
2017-12-11 8:40 ` Antw: " Ulrich Windl
2017-12-12 16:57 ` Philip Oakley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5A1E70AA020000A100029175@gwsmtp1.uni-regensburg.de \
--to=ulrich.windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://80x24.org/mirrors/git.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).