There is a master branch in the project. dev forwarded from it, and branches of individual fixes come from dev, let's call fix .
Those. the project looks like master -> dev -> fix . After merging the dev and fix branches, the fix branch was saved in the repository.
git checkout dev git merge master <<ΡΡΡ ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΡΠ»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΠΈ>> git branch > fix >*dev > master Should it be removed or should it hang there?
You can quite easily remove. Many people do just that, so that they simply would not have blighted the eyes in the list of branches.
Nevertheless, it is absolutely not necessary - if you do not want, you can leave it.
Well, of course, itβs not worthwhile to delete the permanent branches that the team wants to use for the ongoing development process, for example, created to match the same Gitflow Workflow . Those. If you say that you have developed the develop branch into master, having finished working on some functionality, then constantly deleting the develop branch after merging is an extremely stupid idea.
In most cases, after a merge, you can safely remove a waste branch.
git branch -d ΠΈΠΌΡΠΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈ If git considers that the branch has not been completely merged, it will show a warning and refuse to delete the branch. If you are sure that you need to delete a branch (using the git branch -D ΠΈΠΌΡΠΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈ ) that is not fully merged yet, you need to take a few additional steps to clean up the unlinked commits.
There are a number of cases when the branch is recommended to save. For example, if this is a branch of new features (new features), then you may want to edit this feature (feature) inside a merged branch.
This is a translation of the answer Jonas Wielicki https://stackoverflow.com/a/14005910
Source: https://ru.stackoverflow.com/questions/428881/
All Articles