I have a cleanup command that integrates with fzf. It pre selects every merged branch, so I can just hit return to delete them all. But it gives me the opportunity to deselect to preserve any branches if I want. It also prunes any remote branches
I've got a few aliases that integrate with fzf like an interactive cherry pick (choose branch, choose 1 or more commits), or a branch selector with a preview panel showing commits to the side. Super useful
The article also mentions that master has changed to main mostly, but some places use develop and other names as their primary branch. For that reason I always use a git config variable to reference such branches. In my global git config it's main. Then I override where necessary in any repo's local config eg here's an update command that updates primary and rebases the current branch on top:
# switch to primary branch, pull, switch back, rebase
update = !"git switch ${1:-$(git config user.primaryBranch)}; git pull; git switch -; git rebase -;"
I cleanup branches interactively with a few lines of bash, which takes a bit more time but is less likely to destroy active work.
lloeki 1 hours ago [-]
I've had essentially that - if a bit fancier to accept an optional argument as well as handle common "mainline" branch names - aliased as `git lint` for a while:
Can you imagine a more natural way of doing the same? Maybe sorting the branches topologically by default (so the mergeds sink down)? I am doing my best to make a better UX for revision control and, having that experience, your example looks scary.
The author branded git as an "information manager from hell" initially. It was indeed quite rough. Strangely, it is still the case.
EricRiese 10 minutes ago [-]
Much more complicated than necessary. I just use
git branch | xargs git branch -d
Don't quote me, that's off the top of my head.
It won't delete unmerged branches by default. The line with the marker for the current branch throws an error but it does no harm. And I just run it with `develop` checked out. If I delete develop by accident I can recreate it from origin/develop.
Sometimes I intentionally delete develop if my develop branch is far behind the feature branch I'm on. If I don't and I have to switch to a really old develop and pull before merging in my feature branch, it creates unnecessary churn on my files and makes my IDE waste time trying to build the obsolete stuff. And depending how obsolete it is and what files have changed, it can be disruptive to the IDE.
Readme also explains why it's better than a bash-oneliner in some cases.
whazor 2 hours ago [-]
I currently have a TUI addiction. Each time I want something to be easier, I open claude-code and ask for a TUI. Now I have a git worktree manager where I can add/rebase/delete. As TUI library I use Textual which claude handles quite well, especially as it can test-run quite some Python code.
kqr 7 minutes ago [-]
In the case of Git, I can warmly recommend Magit as a TUI. Not only does it make frequent operations easier and rare operations doable -- it also teaches you Git!
how do you trust the code claude wrote? don't you get anxiety "what if there's an error in tui code and it would mess up my git repo"?
freedomben 8 minutes ago [-]
I'm not GP, but I have backups, plus I always make sure I've committed and pushed all code I care about to the remote. I do this even when running a prompt in an agent. That goes for running most things actually, not just CC. If claude code runs a git push -f then that could really hurt, but I have enough confidence from working with the agents that they aren't going to do that that it's worth it to me to take the risk in exchange for the convenience of using the agent.
embedding-shape 15 minutes ago [-]
> how do you trust the code claude wrote?
If that's something you're worried about, review the code before running it.
> don't you get anxiety "what if there's an error in tui code and it would mess up my git repo"?
I think you might want to not run untrusted programs in an environment like that, alternatively find a way of start being able to trust the program. Either approaches work, and works best depending on what you're trying to do.
sclangdon 43 minutes ago [-]
Isn't it this case no matter who wrote the code? How do you ever run anything if you're worried about bugs?
phailhaus 41 minutes ago [-]
When I write the code myself, I'm not worried that I snuck a `git reset --hard` somewhere.
eulers_secret 43 minutes ago [-]
Tig is a nice and long-maintained git tui you might enjoy, then!
If nothing else maybe for inspiration
firesteelrain 1 hours ago [-]
Can you explain TUI? I have never heard this before
Peoples definitions will be on a gradient, but its somewhere between CLI (type into a terminal to use) and GUI (use your mouse in a windowing system), TUI runs in your terminal like a CLI but probably supports "graphical widgets" like buttons, bars, hotkeys, panes, etc.
giglamesh 54 minutes ago [-]
So the acronym is for Terrible User Interface? ;)
allarm 43 minutes ago [-]
No it's not.
Bjartr 1 hours ago [-]
Terminal User Interface, contrasting with a Graphical User Interface (GUI). Most often applied to programs that use the terminal as a pseudo-graphical canvas that they draw on with characters to provide an interactive page that can be navigated around with the keyboard.
Really, they're just a GUI drawn with Unicode instead of drawing primitives.
Like many restrictions, limiting oneself to just a fixed grid of colored Unicode characters for drawing lends itself to more creative solutions to problems. Some people prefer such UIs, some people don't.
Muvasa 45 minutes ago [-]
I prefer tui's for two reasons.
1. Very used to vi keybindings
2. I like low resources software. I love the ability to open the software in less than a second in a second do what I needed using vi motions. And close it less than a second.
Some people will be like you save two seconds trying to do something simple. You lose more time building the tool than you will use it in your life.
It's not about saving time. It's about eliminating the mental toll from having to context switch(i know it sounds ai, reading so much ai text has gotten to me)
irl_zebra 22 minutes ago [-]
"It's not about saving time, it's about eliminating the mental toll from having to context switch"
This broke my brain! Woah!
criddell 32 minutes ago [-]
> an interactive page that can be navigated around with the keyboard
Or mouse / trackpad.
I really haven't seen anything better for making TUIs than Borland's Turbo Vision framework from 35ish years ago.
ses1984 1 hours ago [-]
Terminal UI.
booleandilemma 43 minutes ago [-]
It's definitely an acronym that got popular in the last year or so, though I'm sure there are people out there who will pretend otherwise. I've been in the industry 15+ years now and never heard it before. Previously it was just UI, GUI, or CLI.
freedomben 2 minutes ago [-]
It's gotten more popular for sure, but it's definitely been around a long time. Even just on HN there have been conversation about gdb tui ever since I've been here (starting browsing HN around 2011). For anyone who works in embedded systems it's a very common term and has been since I got into it in 2008-ish. I would guess it was much more of a linux/unix user thing until recently though, so people on windows and mac probably rarely if ever intersected with the term, so that's definitely a change. Just my observations.
KPGv2 59 minutes ago [-]
it's the name gen Z and gen alpha puppyn00bs have given to what us old heads have always called CLIs
on tik too young folks are always discovering "revolutionary" things and giving them names, ignoring they're either super mundane, or already have a name
on one hand, i absolutely LOVE the passion for discovery and invention
on the other hand, if you're 19yo you probably didn't discover something revolutionary
(Edit: I've seen some people online suggest a CLI is only when you manually type the command yourself, while a TUI incorporates text-based graphical elements, but that's something invented by young people; everything before GUIs was called a CLI until pretty recently. A terminal is /literally/ a command-line interface.)
TarqDirtyToMe 49 minutes ago [-]
They aren’t the same thing. TUI refers to interactive ncurses-like interfaces. Vim has a TUI, ls does not
I’m fairly certain this terminology has been around since at least the early aughts.
cristoperb 34 minutes ago [-]
I don't know when the term became widespread for gui-style terminal programs, but the wikipedia entry has existed for more than 20 years so I think it is an older term than you imply.
Sorry, but this 65 yo grey-beard disagrees. A TUI to me, back in the 80s/90s, was something that ran in the terminal and was almost always ncurses-based. This was back when I was still using ADM-3A serial terminals, none of that new-fangled PCs stuff.
bombcar 20 minutes ago [-]
Exactly. A CLI is a single line - like edlin. A TUI takes over all or most of the screen, like edit or vi or emacs.
Norton Commander (or Midnight Commander) is probably the quintessential example of a powerful TUI; it can do things that would be quite hard to replicate as easily in a CLI.
KPGv2 23 minutes ago [-]
We might've been caught on different parts of the wave. I checked Ngrams out of curiosity
Basically it was never used, then it was heavily used, and then never used, and then in the early 00s it took off again.
That'd explain why you used it, I never did, and now young kids are.
john_strinlai 22 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
Trufa 1 hours ago [-]
The amount of little tools I'm creating for myself is incredible, 4.6 seems like it can properly one/two shot it now without my attention.
Did you open source that one? I was thinking of this exact same thing but wanted to think a little about how to share deps, i.e. if I do quick worktree to try a branch I don't wanna npm i that takes forever.
Also, if you share it with me, there's obviously no expectations, even it's a half backed vibecoded mess.
unshavedyak 16 minutes ago [-]
I’ve been wanting similar but have instead been focused on GUI. My #1 issue with TUI is that I’ve never liked code jumps very smooth high fps fast scrolling. Between that and terminal lacking variable font sizes, I’d vastly prefer TUIs, but I just struggle to get over those two issues.
I’ve been entirely terminal based for 20 years now and those issues have just worn me down. Yet I still love terminal for its simplicity. Rock and a hard place I guess.
SauntSolaire 20 minutes ago [-]
What's the point of open sourcing something you one shot with an LLM? At that point just open source the prompt you used to generate it.
elliotbnvl 1 hours ago [-]
The deps question is huge, let me know if you solve it.
hattmall 1 hours ago [-]
What are some examples of useful TUI you made? I'm generally opposed to the concept
lionkor 1 hours ago [-]
That sounds like a complete waste of time and tokens to me, what is the benefit? So each time you do something, you let Claude one shot a tui? This seems like a waste of compute and your time
htnthrow11220 1 hours ago [-]
They said each time they want something to be easier, not each time they do something. And they didn’t mention it has to be one-shot. You might have read too quickly and you’ve responded to something that didn’t actually exist.
bmacho 1 hours ago [-]
Now that I think about it, if Claude can put most useful functions in a TUI and make them discoverable (show them in a list), than this could be better than asking for one-liners (and forgetting them) every single time.
Maybe I'll try using small TUI too.
MarsIronPI 1 hours ago [-]
On the contrary. Once these tools exist they exist forever, independently of Claude or a Claude Code subscription. IMO this is the best way to use AI for personal use.
duneisagoodbook 1 hours ago [-]
yeah! they should focus on more productive pursuits, like telling people online what to do with their time and resources.
morissette 1 hours ago [-]
And these are things outside of our control.
jimnotgym 14 minutes ago [-]
I have an image of running his command, 'ciaclean', and a black van turnes up with a bunch of agents in coveralls, brandishing rolls of polyethylene sheeting and drums of acid.
jakub_g 1 hours ago [-]
The main issue with `git branch --merged` is that if the repo enforces squash merges, it obviously won't work, because SHA of squash-merged commit in main != SHA of the original branch HEAD.
What tools are the best to do the equivalent but for squash-merged branches detections?
Note: this problem is harder than it seems to do safely, because e.g. I can have a branch `foo` locally that was squash-merged on remote, but before it happened, I might have added a few more commits locally and forgot to push. So naively deleting `foo` locally may make me lose data.
samhclark 2 minutes ago [-]
Depends on your workflow, I guess. I don't need to handle that case you noted and we delete the branch on remote after it's merged. So, it's good enough for me to delete my local branch if the upstream branch is gone. This is the alias I use for that, which I picked up from HN.
`Out-GridView` gives a very simple dialog box to (multi) select branch names I want to mark finished.
I'm a branch hoarder in a squash merge repo and just prepend a `zoo/` prefix. `zoo/` generally sorts to the bottom of branch lists and I can collapse it as a folder in many UIs. I have found this useful in several ways:
1) It makes `git rebase --interactive` much easier when working with stacked branches by taking advantage of `--update-refs`. Merges do all that work for you by finding their common base/ancestor. Squash merging you have to remember which commits already merged to drop from your branch. With `--update-refs` if I find it trying to update a `zoo/` branch I know I can drop/delete every commit up to that update-ref line and also delete the update-ref.
2) I sometimes do want to find code in intermediate commits that never made it into the squashed version. Maybe I tried an experiment in a commit in a branch, then deleted that experiment in switching directions in a later commit. Squashing removes all evidence of that deleted experiment, but I can still find it if I remember the `zoo/` branch name.
All this extra work for things that merge commits gives you for free/simpler just makes me dislike squash merging repos more.
masklinn 26 minutes ago [-]
Not just squash merges, rebase-merges also don't work.
> What tools are the best to do the equivalent but for squash-merged branches detections?
Hooking on remote branch deletion is what most people do, under the assumption that you tend to clean out the branches of your PRs after a while. But of course if you don't do that it doesn't work.
cowlby 7 minutes ago [-]
Anyone else "vibe git-ing” lately? I just ask Claude Opus to clean it up and it does really well. Same for build commands and test harnesses.
I also set mine up to run on `git checkout master` so that I don't really have to think about it too hard -- it just runs automagically. `gcm` has now become muscle memory for me.
So effectively "I just discovered xargs"? Not to disparage OP but there isn't anything particularly novel here.
Someone1234 55 minutes ago [-]
This feels like gatekeeping someone sharing something cool they've recently learned.
I personally lean more towards the "let's share cool little productivity tips and tricks with one another" instead of the "in order to share this you have to meet [entirely arbitrary line of novelty/cleverness/originality]."
But each to their own I suppose. I wonder how you learned about using xargs? Maybe a blog-post or article not dissimilar to this one?
superxpro12 23 minutes ago [-]
No I agree with you. This whole aura of "well IIIII knew this and YOUUUUU didnt" needs to die. I get that it's sometimes redundant and frustrating to encounter the same question a few times... but there's always new people learning in this world, and they deserve a chance to learn too.
Why do people constantly have to be looking for any way to justify their sense of superiority over others? Collaborative attitudes are so much better for all involved.
jimmydoe 1 hours ago [-]
And they have to learn that from cia?
That says so much about the generation we are in, just don’t go to school but learn math from mafia
vntok 24 minutes ago [-]
Where else would you learn about triple-entry bookkeeping?
skydhash 1 hours ago [-]
People really do need to read the “Unix Power Tools” book and realize their problem has been solved for decades.
gosub100 45 minutes ago [-]
"People just need to find the info they don't know about, so then they'll know it."
cgfjtynzdrfht 1 hours ago [-]
[dead]
1 hours ago [-]
d0liver 45 minutes ago [-]
IIRC, you can do git branch -D $(git branch) and git will refuse to delete your current branch. Kind of the lazy way. I never work off of master/main, and usually when I need to look at them I checkout the remote branches instead.
gritzko 1 hours ago [-]
Speaking of user friendliness of git UI. I am working on a revision control system that (ideally) should be as user friendly as Ctrl+S Ctrl+Z in most common cases. Spent almost a week on design docs, looking for feedback (so far it was very valuable, btw)
Have you tried Jujutsu? If you want to make a better VCS, your baseline should be that, in my opinion, because it already deals with a lot of the Git pain points whilst be able to read and publish to Git repositories.
gritzko 38 minutes ago [-]
The idea of using git as a blob storage and building entire new machinery on top is definitely a worthy one. At this point though, the de-facto baseline is no doubt git. If git as a store withstands the abuse of jj and jj becomes the industry standard, then I would agree with you. Also, at that point they may drop git backend entirely just because of price/performance discrepancy. git is overweight for what it does, if they make it do only the bottom 20%, then things will get funny.
Still, many oddities of git are inevitable due to its underlying storage model, so it makes sense to explore other models too.
trashymctrash 54 minutes ago [-]
If you squash your PR before merging, then this alternative worked really well for me:
I don't delete branches, I just work with the top several most recently modified.
the_real_cher 27 minutes ago [-]
How to list those? Is there a flag for git branch to sort by recently modified?
(not on my computer right now to check)
embedding-shape 6 minutes ago [-]
I do `gb` (probably "git branch" when I set that up) which apparently is an alias to `git for-each-ref --sort=-committerdate refs/heads/ --format='%(refname:short)' | tac`, displays a list with the latest changed branch at the bottom. Remove the `| tac` for the reverse order.
I recently let copilot create a document with a few helpful git commands and that particular one was the one it came with as solution for exactly this case.
ihsoy 38 minutes ago [-]
Dont most git instances, like github, delete branch after a PR was merged, by default?
I am not sure under what usecases, you will end up with a lot of stale branches. And git fetch -pa should fix it locally
nightpool 33 minutes ago [-]
`--prune` will delete your local copies of the origin's branches (e.g. `origin/whatever`). But it won't delete your local branches (e.g. `whatever` itself). So PRs that you've worked on or checked out locally will never get deleted.
embedding-shape 11 minutes ago [-]
> Dont most git instances, like github, delete branch after a PR was merged, by default?
By default, I don't think so. And even if the branch is deleted, objects can still be there. I think GitLab has a "Clean stale objects" thing you can trigger, I don't seem to recall ever seeing any "Git Maintenance" UI actions on GitHub so not sure how it works there.
plqbfbv 33 minutes ago [-]
In Github it needs to be explicitly configured (Settings > General > Delete head branches after merging), Gitlab is the same.
A lot of my developer colleagues don't know how git works, so they have no idea that "I merged the PR" != "I deleted the feature branch". I once had to cleanup a couple repositories that had hundreds of branches spanning back 5+ years.
Nowadays I enforce it as the default project setting.
stabbles 57 minutes ago [-]
Missed opportunity to call it `git ciao`
devhouse 6 minutes ago [-]
don't forget to fetch first
dietr1ch 43 minutes ago [-]
Wait, why would the update for the silly master->main change be swapping the excluded regex instead of just excluding both?
PunchyHamster 36 minutes ago [-]
coz OP has agenda and
> Since most projects now use main instead of master
Unfortunately doesn't work if the project you work on squashes everything :(
schiffern 1 hours ago [-]
"ciaclean" is a nice touch.
I assume CIA stands for Clean It All.
sammyteee 1 hours ago [-]
"Clean It All, Clean" :P
plufz 57 minutes ago [-]
I assume it means mess up commit history and install ”our” BDFL.
galbar 2 hours ago [-]
The git plugin in oh-my-zsh has an alias for this: gbda
It also has one for squash-merged branches: gbds
Very useful I've been using them for years
blakesterz 1 hours ago [-]
That's handy! I just started using oh-my-zsh and I feel like I know about 4% of useful things it can do so far.
gjvc 1 hours ago [-]
"trapd00r" is the theme you want, if only because the name is cool
giglamesh 50 minutes ago [-]
I change themes just often enough to completely forget how to do it and also forget whatever other adjustments I had to make to it all work. And like... is my config versioned somehow? This is a long way to say, Thank You for inspiring me to look at all that stuff again!
bmacho 53 minutes ago [-]
> But deleting them one by one is tedious. The CIA’s dev team has a cleaner solution:
agree, this just seems click-baity. if you're familiar with the UNIX Way, this is a one-liner you'd naturally write. CIA leaked docs mention and a blog post for this?
Rendered at 15:53:57 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
I've got a few aliases that integrate with fzf like an interactive cherry pick (choose branch, choose 1 or more commits), or a branch selector with a preview panel showing commits to the side. Super useful
The article also mentions that master has changed to main mostly, but some places use develop and other names as their primary branch. For that reason I always use a git config variable to reference such branches. In my global git config it's main. Then I override where necessary in any repo's local config eg here's an update command that updates primary and rebases the current branch on top:
https://github.com/WickyNilliams/dotfiles/blob/c4154dd9b6980...https://replicated.wiki/blog/partII.html#navigating-the-hist...
The author branded git as an "information manager from hell" initially. It was indeed quite rough. Strangely, it is still the case.
git branch | xargs git branch -d
Don't quote me, that's off the top of my head.
It won't delete unmerged branches by default. The line with the marker for the current branch throws an error but it does no harm. And I just run it with `develop` checked out. If I delete develop by accident I can recreate it from origin/develop.
Sometimes I intentionally delete develop if my develop branch is far behind the feature branch I'm on. If I don't and I have to switch to a really old develop and pull before merging in my feature branch, it creates unnecessary churn on my files and makes my IDE waste time trying to build the obsolete stuff. And depending how obsolete it is and what files have changed, it can be disruptive to the IDE.
https://github.com/foriequal0/git-trim
Readme also explains why it's better than a bash-oneliner in some cases.
I have a draft here about one aspect of Magit I enjoy: https://entropicthoughts.com/rebasing-in-magit
If that's something you're worried about, review the code before running it.
> don't you get anxiety "what if there's an error in tui code and it would mess up my git repo"?
I think you might want to not run untrusted programs in an environment like that, alternatively find a way of start being able to trust the program. Either approaches work, and works best depending on what you're trying to do.
If nothing else maybe for inspiration
Peoples definitions will be on a gradient, but its somewhere between CLI (type into a terminal to use) and GUI (use your mouse in a windowing system), TUI runs in your terminal like a CLI but probably supports "graphical widgets" like buttons, bars, hotkeys, panes, etc.
Really, they're just a GUI drawn with Unicode instead of drawing primitives.
Like many restrictions, limiting oneself to just a fixed grid of colored Unicode characters for drawing lends itself to more creative solutions to problems. Some people prefer such UIs, some people don't.
Some people will be like you save two seconds trying to do something simple. You lose more time building the tool than you will use it in your life.
It's not about saving time. It's about eliminating the mental toll from having to context switch(i know it sounds ai, reading so much ai text has gotten to me)
This broke my brain! Woah!
Or mouse / trackpad.
I really haven't seen anything better for making TUIs than Borland's Turbo Vision framework from 35ish years ago.
on tik too young folks are always discovering "revolutionary" things and giving them names, ignoring they're either super mundane, or already have a name
on one hand, i absolutely LOVE the passion for discovery and invention
on the other hand, if you're 19yo you probably didn't discover something revolutionary
(Edit: I've seen some people online suggest a CLI is only when you manually type the command yourself, while a TUI incorporates text-based graphical elements, but that's something invented by young people; everything before GUIs was called a CLI until pretty recently. A terminal is /literally/ a command-line interface.)
I’m fairly certain this terminology has been around since at least the early aughts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Text-based_user_i...
Norton Commander (or Midnight Commander) is probably the quintessential example of a powerful TUI; it can do things that would be quite hard to replicate as easily in a CLI.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=TUI&year_start...
Basically it was never used, then it was heavily used, and then never used, and then in the early 00s it took off again.
That'd explain why you used it, I never did, and now young kids are.
Did you open source that one? I was thinking of this exact same thing but wanted to think a little about how to share deps, i.e. if I do quick worktree to try a branch I don't wanna npm i that takes forever.
Also, if you share it with me, there's obviously no expectations, even it's a half backed vibecoded mess.
I’ve been entirely terminal based for 20 years now and those issues have just worn me down. Yet I still love terminal for its simplicity. Rock and a hard place I guess.
Maybe I'll try using small TUI too.
What tools are the best to do the equivalent but for squash-merged branches detections?
Note: this problem is harder than it seems to do safely, because e.g. I can have a branch `foo` locally that was squash-merged on remote, but before it happened, I might have added a few more commits locally and forgot to push. So naively deleting `foo` locally may make me lose data.
I'm a branch hoarder in a squash merge repo and just prepend a `zoo/` prefix. `zoo/` generally sorts to the bottom of branch lists and I can collapse it as a folder in many UIs. I have found this useful in several ways:
1) It makes `git rebase --interactive` much easier when working with stacked branches by taking advantage of `--update-refs`. Merges do all that work for you by finding their common base/ancestor. Squash merging you have to remember which commits already merged to drop from your branch. With `--update-refs` if I find it trying to update a `zoo/` branch I know I can drop/delete every commit up to that update-ref line and also delete the update-ref.
2) I sometimes do want to find code in intermediate commits that never made it into the squashed version. Maybe I tried an experiment in a commit in a branch, then deleted that experiment in switching directions in a later commit. Squashing removes all evidence of that deleted experiment, but I can still find it if I remember the `zoo/` branch name.
All this extra work for things that merge commits gives you for free/simpler just makes me dislike squash merging repos more.
> What tools are the best to do the equivalent but for squash-merged branches detections?
Hooking on remote branch deletion is what most people do, under the assumption that you tend to clean out the branches of your PRs after a while. But of course if you don't do that it doesn't work.
I also set mine up to run on `git checkout master` so that I don't really have to think about it too hard -- it just runs automagically. `gcm` has now become muscle memory for me.
2. Enumerate local branches, selecting each that has been marked as no longer having a remote version (ignoring the current branch)
3. Delete the local branch safely
I personally lean more towards the "let's share cool little productivity tips and tricks with one another" instead of the "in order to share this you have to meet [entirely arbitrary line of novelty/cleverness/originality]."
But each to their own I suppose. I wonder how you learned about using xargs? Maybe a blog-post or article not dissimilar to this one?
Why do people constantly have to be looking for any way to justify their sense of superiority over others? Collaborative attitudes are so much better for all involved.
That says so much about the generation we are in, just don’t go to school but learn math from mafia
https://replicated.wiki/blog/partII.html#navigating-the-hist...
Still, many oddities of git are inevitable due to its underlying storage model, so it makes sense to explore other models too.
(not on my computer right now to check)
I am not sure under what usecases, you will end up with a lot of stale branches. And git fetch -pa should fix it locally
By default, I don't think so. And even if the branch is deleted, objects can still be there. I think GitLab has a "Clean stale objects" thing you can trigger, I don't seem to recall ever seeing any "Git Maintenance" UI actions on GitHub so not sure how it works there.
A lot of my developer colleagues don't know how git works, so they have no idea that "I merged the PR" != "I deleted the feature branch". I once had to cleanup a couple repositories that had hundreds of branches spanning back 5+ years.
Nowadays I enforce it as the default project setting.
> Since most projects now use main instead of master
some delusions to boot
https://github.com/tkrajina/git-plus
Disclaimer, I'm the author ^^
I assume CIA stands for Clean It All.
It also has one for squash-merged branches: gbds
Very useful I've been using them for years