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
--set-upstream.
Maybe the top
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 branc
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/
you said
"I wanted to delete the t
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
>> ancestors (i.e. merged) of M.
>>
>> As Junio said:- "branch -d" protec
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**.
Actually, I think people loosened this over ti
"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 over time and removal of
b
From: "Ulrich Windl"
To:
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 8:32 AM
Subject: 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 delet
Hi Ulrich
From: "Johannes Schindelin"
To: "Ulrich Windl"
Cc:
Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 12:27 PM
Subject: 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
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 wa
> "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 to "branch -D" is to
> 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).
"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 to "branch -D" is to protect object
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 re
13 matches
Mail list logo
