On 3. Sep 2019, at 23:55, Marshall Schor <m...@schor.com> wrote: > > Any reason not to delete these? or is there another "best practice" way to > manage these?
Not that I know of. > I assume deleting them makes them disappear from this list, but they'll always > be around in the repo and digging thru some logs can find them, right? If the branches have not been merged and are deleted, I believe that git is allowed to garbage-collect them. This doesn't happen immediately, but eventually. If they have been merged, then the commits are preserved when the branch is deleted, but the information at which commit a branch was when it was deleted is afaik gone. I don't think that branch deletions are per-se logged anywhere in the repo. If they are unmerged but still important enough to keep around, I'd maybe suggest to rename them to "attic/XXX" so they are "out of the way". Graphical git clients have the habit of using the slashes in branch names to organize branches into a "folder" hierarchy. Giving those branches a common prefix therefore makes it easy to collapse them. -- Richard
