Deleting branches

You delete a Git branch once it has done its job - usually right after its feature lands in main. Old branches pile up in your list and make it harder to see what's actually in progress, so clearing them out is a normal part of the workflow, not an afterthought.

Delete a merged branch with -d

Once you've merged new-feature into main (and switched back to main), delete the feature branch with -d:

git switch main
git branch -d new-feature

Remember, a branch is just a pointer to a commit. Deleting the branch only removes the label - the commits themselves are already part of main, so nothing is lost. The work lives on; you're just tidying up the name.

Cleaning up several at once is fine too: git branch -d feature-a feature-b fix-typo deletes them all in one line, and because -d checks each branch individually, any that aren't fully merged are skipped with a warning while the safe ones still go.

You can't delete the branch you're on

Git won't let you delete the branch you're currently sitting on - that would leave HEAD pointing at nothing. If you try, you'll see an error. Switch to another branch first (usually main), then delete.

The safety check behind -d

The lowercase -d is deliberately cautious. It only deletes a branch whose commits are already merged into your current branch. If they aren't, Git refuses and warns you:

error: The branch 'new-feature' is not fully merged.

That message is a feature, not an obstacle. It's stopping you from throwing away work that exists only on that branch. If you see it, the branch has commits that aren't anywhere else yet.

Force delete with -D

Sometimes you really do want to delete an unmerged branch - an experiment that didn't work out, for example. The uppercase -D forces the deletion regardless of merge state:

git branch -D throwaway-experiment

Use -D with care. Because those commits aren't merged anywhere, deleting the branch can make them very hard to find again. A simple rule: reach for -d by default, and only use -D when you're certain you want the work gone.

Why delete branches at all?

• A clean list. git branch should show what you're actually working on, not months of finished features.
• Clarity for everyone. On a shared project, a short branch list tells your team what's live and what's history.
• No cost to the history. Merged commits stay in main forever. The branch name was only ever a temporary handle.

The normal rhythm is: branch, work, merge, delete. Then start the next piece of work on a fresh branch.

Common mistake

The usual scare is running git branch -d and seeing "not fully merged", then reaching for -D to make the error go away. Don't do that reflexively. The warning means the branch holds commits that exist nowhere else - force-deleting really can lose them. Merge the branch first if you want the work, and only force-delete when you genuinely intend to discard it.

FAQ

What's the difference between git branch -d and -D?

Lowercase -d deletes a branch only if its commits are already merged, protecting you from losing work. Uppercase -D force-deletes regardless. Use -d normally and -D only when you truly want to discard unmerged commits.

Does deleting a branch delete its commits?

Not if they're merged. The commits are part of the branch you merged into, so deleting the branch just removes the label. Deleting an unmerged branch with -D, however, can make its commits very hard to recover.

Why can't I delete the branch I'm on?

Deleting your current branch would leave Git with nowhere to point HEAD. Switch to another branch first, such as git switch main, and then delete the one you no longer need.