Re: [PATCH v14 4/6] branch: add --prune-merged <branch>

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com> writes:

> On 19/06/2026 17:01, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>> 
>>   - Notice that a branch that is deleted (because it itself is
>>     merged) is still depended upon by being @{upstream} of somebody
>>     else, and when it happens, fail the operation (i.e., do not
>>     delete the branch).
>
> Not deleting is definitely the safest option. As Harald has pointed out 
> we then need to think about what to do with the upstream branch of the 
> branch we're keeping because it is an upstream of another branch that's 
> not being deleted. Keeping the whole chain is probably safest.

You're right.

> I think handling branches that are the upstream for another branch the 
> same way for "git branch -d" and "git branch --prune-merged" is a good idea.

Yeah.  The latter should be a short-hand for

    for each branch
    do
	if branch is merged to its upstream
	then
	    remember to remove it
	fi
    done
    now remove those we scheduled to remove with "git branch -d".

so it would be clean if we can explain that philosophically the
safety lies within "gir branch -d".

Thanks.