On 15/09/21, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > perusing o'reilly's "version control with git (2nd ed)", doing more > proofreading possibly in preparation for a 3rd edition, and ran across > this passage about deleting branches i hadn't noticed before: > > "Git won?t allow you to delete a branch that contains commits that are > not also present on the current branch. That is, Git prevents you from > accidentally removing development in commits that will be lost if the > branch were to be deleted." > > hang on, that sounds contradictory. the first line claims that git > won't allow you to delete a branch that contains commits not on the > *current* branch, but the second line sounds more general in that git > doesn't want you to delete a branch where you might lose work, but as > long as the deleted branch commits are present on *some* branch (not > necessarily the current one), you should be fine. > > can someone clarify this? is this as confusing as it seems to be to > me? My understanding is the -d option to delete a branch won't let you do so unless it is in another branch (don't remember which branch), but -D will force that delete regardless of the changes' existence in another branch. > rday slainte mhath, RGB -- Richard Guy Briggs -- ~\ -- ~\ <hpv.tricolour.ca> <www.TriColour.ca> -- \___ o \@ @ Ride yer bike! Ottawa, ON, CANADA -- Lo_>__M__\\/\%__\\/\% Vote! -- <greenparty.ca>_____GTVS6#790__(*)__(*)________(*)(*)_________________