Search code examples
gitbranch

Should I delete unused branches?

I'm thinking about unused branched.

When I create new module I create new branch and name it with pattern "[task_id]-[shortDescription]" - for example: "4389-surveys". When I finish work on this branch I merge it to master and the branch lies unused.

Should I delete this branches or keep it for eventuality? Which practice is better and recommended?

Solution

  • Credit @masonk https://stackoverflow.com/a/3392942/ :

    Delete after merge is the usual way. This is why git branch -d checks to make sure that the branch is fully merged before it will delete.

    There are a few reasons that I can think of to keep a branch around: you might want to hold onto it in case you have bugs coming back once it hits production, or you might want a historical record.

    In either case, you have the option of tagging the head of the branch before you delete it. A tag is like a branch in that it is a pointer to a commit, except for a few minor differences:

    1. porcelain usually doesn't display tags in exploratory commands like git show-branch or tab-auto complete in checkout

    2. checking one out doesn't set HEAD (you will be in a detached HEAD)

    3. you can leave a "tag" note on top of the note on the commit that it points at.

    This way you preserve history, and if you ever do need to bug fix, I recommend just creating a new branch off of master for the fix.