Re: [PATCH v19 5/7] branch: add --delete-merged <branch>

Harald Nordgren <[email protected]> writes:

> I think I can fix this with
>
> ```
>     -+  if (strset_contains(data->deletable, ref->name))
>     ++  if (strset_contains(data->deletable, ref->name) ||
>     ++      strset_contains(data->spared, ref->name))
> ```
>
> I used your example to write a test about it as well.
>
>
> Harald

I do not claim that the single example I gave covers all the issues
that arise from failing to analyze the dependency graph, or from
attempting to solve the problem sequentially, which makes the
solution depend on the order in which branches are visited.

I have a suspicion that it may be unavoidable to employ a multi-pass
approach that iteratively identifies all branches transitively
needed by any surviving branch, though that is merely a hunch,
unsupported by any proof.

Thanks.