Sort all branches by last update

[hubgit]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Showing recent branches is a great feature, but I often have trouble finding a fairly recent branch because it's disappeared from the short "Recent Branches" list.

Describe the solution you'd like

Divide the list of branches into "Local Branches" (sorted by date) and "Remote Branches" (sorted by date), instead of "Recent Branches" (sorted by date) and "Other Branches" (sorted alphabetically).

It's not very useful to have branches sorted alphabetically, as you can already type to filter them.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Switching to the command line and using a custom git branches alias:

for-each-ref --sort=committerdate refs/heads/ --format='%(HEAD) %(color:yellow)%(refname:short)%(color:reset) - %(color:red)%(objectname:short)%(color:reset) - %(contents:subject) - %(authorname) (%(color:green)%(committerdate:relative)%(color:reset))'

Teachability, Documentation, Adoption, Migration Strategy

This would replace the current dropdown list of branches.

[shiftkey]

Showing recent branches is a great feature, but I often have trouble finding a fairly recent branch because it's disappeared from the short "Recent Branches" list.

I'm actually more interested in this part of the issue than changing the sorting, because I've spent a bit of time in there thinking about how it works.

I think the core of your problem is that we don't consider whether a branch exists in the list when we're reading the reflog. I can see this in my local Desktop clone after pruning some merge branches:

Are you pruning your merged branches? I think the fact that our getRecentBranches function here doesn't confirm a branch exists locally mean we can end up often showing fewer branches than the 5 allowed.

desktop/app/src/lib/git/reflog.ts

Lines 5 to 8 in 56b1fe7

	export async function getRecentBranches(
	repository: Repository,
	limit: number
	): Promise<ReadonlyArray<string>> {

[hubgit]

Are you pruning your merged branches? I think the fact that our getRecentBranches function here doesn't confirm a branch exists locally mean we can end up often showing fewer branches than the 5 allowed.

The remote branches are being deleted when they're merged, but the local branches aren't being pruned. Does the list take account of which branches are in the origin repository and which have been merged, or is it literally just the most recently-edited local branches?

If I run the git branches alias that's in the issue description, I can see 5 local branches edited in the last 24hr, but GitHub Desktop only shows 4 of them (+ master).

There could easily be more than 5 branches edited in the last 24hr, as well.

I'm interested to know when it's useful to have branches listed in alphabetical order, rather than by date.

[shiftkey]

@hubgit thanks for the extra details

Does the list take account of which branches are in the origin repository and which have been merged, or is it literally just the most recently-edited local branches?

No, the code has zero context on the actual branch details and just walks the reflog to find the N most recent branches that were checked out locally. This is what we consider "recent" - branches that you've checked out locally, and we don't look at the most recent commit to each branch.

I can see 5 local branches edited in the last 24hr, but GitHub Desktop only shows 4 of them (+ master).

This makes sense - we mark master as the default branch, so it gets listed before these recent branches and we show one fewer.

I'm interested to know when it's useful to have branches listed in alphabetical order, rather than by date.

This is mostly just mirroring the defaults of git branch

[shiftkey]

@billygriffin would love your thoughts on two related questions here:

• the recent branches list - using the reflog or looking at the most recent commit timestamp? We've gone with the former option because that felt more focused on you, but if you're in a more collaborative situation using the commit timestamp means you might able to keep up with activity from collaborators

• sorting the branch list - alphabetical versus date? Do we follow Git here and list alphabetically in a predictable way, or would seeing up-to-date branches be helpful for finding things in some situations?

[billygriffin]

@shiftkey @hubgit Thanks for clarifying this, and sorry for the delay in responding. The potential for misaligned expectations vs what's actually presented makes total sense. I added this to our research list (and the label is helpful in reinforcing that). I don't see it as insanely high priority, but definitely worth examination in the next few months as we dig into usability more generally.

I think there are two things here:

1. We should choose whatever patterns are most useful to people, which I think we've attempted to do but may need to re-evaluate with observing people using the app.

2. Whatever we do arrive at, we should make sure the words we use to communicate them match people's expectations. So in this case, we say "Recent branches", but if "recent" means different things to different people, we need to choose clearer language.

Also want to make sure @ampinsk and @donokuda have visibility on this.

[oguzyildizz]

It would be also great if I could increase the number of recent branches displayed in there. Once a branch I'm trying to get is 6th most recent one, finding it takes a bit time

[outofambit]

Thanks for the bump here @oguzyildiz1991 ! There's another conversation happening in #7755 that I've linked this issue to.

[jcushman]

I'll just add another user story for this feature. I often use "recent branches" to switch between the last few branches when I'm working on a couple of things at once. But if I start working on something and then move away for a little longer, I'll have to do something like git for-each-ref --sort=-committerdate refs/heads/ | less to find it again because the list only has five items. "Other branches" has hundreds of branches and doesn't serve any use for me when ordered alphabetically.

[oguzyildizz]

Exactly. If you're working on 5 branches it's alright, but once you're looking for the 6th most recent branch, suddenly you gotta go on an adventure

[steveward]

In #13105 it was brought up that remote branches do not appear in the Recent branches list. Showing them would align with what was mentioned in #5155 (comment):

but if you're in a more collaborative situation using the commit timestamp means you might able to keep up with activity from collaborators

[teadrinker]

The way I perceive recent, is "locally recent" - which branches I have actually recently used/switched to, on this machine).
I think this functionality is fine, and I don't need more than 3 of these for my own usage.

However, it is very annoying that I cannot see new branches that have been added remotely (we have a lot of branches).
For this issue, I would suggest a selection of sorting (Name or Date), ideally this option is global, and saved automatically with app settings.

[Janpot]

Another option could be to add a "show more..." button at the bottom of the 5 most recent branches, to increase the list with 5 more.

[steveward]

Requested in #14828

[steveward]

From #16897:

When attempting to switch to a new branch, the Recent Branches list typically does not show the actual most recent branch(es). If I don't know the branch name, I have to open GitHub on the web, where the Active Branches list does show the most recent branches.