They are still in the repository. To simulate this, let's push the register branch to a new remote branch called force-push. Use this option with care because it makes losing data very easy. Let us remove them with reset command. So while there are times it's necessary to force push, its a good idea to reconfirm your intentions and notify others after doing so. This command would prevent the appearance of unwanted commit in the git log history.
I do git up and it starts to track new branches and deletes the old ones. Thanks for raising the point. In other words, it should delete the master branch remotely. In we covered the most common usage of git push by passing the remote name followed by the branch name. So let's run: git push —f origin head We see from the output now we have force pushed our changes and if we look on GitHub its commit history now matches master. They would be still in the repository if we did not tag them, but then we could reference them only by their hash names.
I fixed this command in the answer. The Master branch maintainer will merge my changes into master and delete all branches he has already merged. Unfortunately I'm not that guy -- I leave git branches laying around, even after they've been merged into master. Here is what I came up with: Running this command inside a Git repository will delete all local branches except the one you are currently on. Some answers are simple, but they don't do what was asked.
Next I do the same with bug-fix-b. It ensures that you don't delete master or your base branch. By force pushing, we overwrote the commit history. So how do we get rid of them with out going through one by one and running the delete command individually? I feel like that's more complex. I came up with this bash script.
So, back to your question. Essentially what you're doing here is pushing a null branch the empty branch name to the left of the : over top of the remote branch the branch name to the right-side of the : , effectively deleting it. Background explanation To understand what's happening, you need to appreciate that, in the situation of tracking branches, you have not one branch, but three. By the way; if you or anyone else is new to Git, I highly recommend reading. Granted you can go through one by one running the delete command, and if their are only a handful of branches this is fine, but anymore than a handful and it gets very tedious, and we didn't become programmers to do tedious tasks by hand. This configuration will tell git to show the relationship between the two branches in git status and git branch -v. That might be possible, but it would require at the very least the shellscript that will pull the list of revisions after the branch point and then looking for patch signatures along the master branch.
So, to delete new-branch, we would run: git push origin :new—branch From the output we see that the branch was deleted and we also see it was removed on GitHub. It would be nice to have undo option command allowing deleting incorrect commit immediately. You may want this functionality as well. If that's not possible, retrieving a list of local branches which have been integrated would be fine, too. Not misenterpreting, rather we just have a different workflow, a branch per issue if you would like to think at it like that.
Unreferenced commits remain in the repository until the garbage collection software is run by system. Original answer: git push --delete remote topicbranch or git push remote :topicbranch Giving a list of branches, would be something with git branch --merged master Rebased branches are trickier. I found an answer as follows Lets say my test branch name feature-collaboration 1. There's a post from my friend here: that lets you remove remote branches that have been merged to master, so you can keep things neat on the remote side as well. Again, run the command git branch -a will show the local status of branches. In that case, this would be to clean up your dev branches from local after checking out, is that right? For example, if someone else has pushed work to the same remote branch while you were working. Also; it is useless to keep a 3 month old branch if it has been merged to master or no longer relevant.
Then there is a question: how do I clean up my local branches? I usually never need to clean up on my 1 man projects, on the others I do it around every 3 or 4 months. In that case, this would be to clean up your dev branches from local after checking out, is that right? Use the following command to remove it. Furthermore, it directs git pull without arguments to pull from the upstream when the new branch is checked out. First git branch creates a list of all local branches, then grep is used to filter branches. Maintenance is incredibly important in any project, but if you want to take your professionalism to the next level, you should keep your git environment in shape. The -v option negates the filter which means the resulting list contains all branch names not matching the given pattern. So If you try to remove this branch, you will face following error.
After all, it can give you the information that lets you do the operation by hand yourself. I did ask a question about this and got in less than an hour. This time it will delete branch successfully. I did not want to delete local branches that were never set up to track a remote branch i. You can also delete a remote branch with git push.
The git branch command has a -r option which affects the remote repository. I ended up using a bit of grep and awk to make this simple command. This article will help you to delete git remote and local branch in repositories. There's one last scenario to cover, which is force push. This works because Git automatically prepends an asterisk to the current branch when listing all branches. They are completely separate objects in Git. While explicit, it does relay the seriousness of using this option.