title: Git convention to indicate throw away branches
body: <p><strong>Scenario:</strong></p>
  
  <p>Person A creates an experimental branch to solve a problem. Person B gets interested and wants to check the code, due to laziness person A pushes to his github rather than configuring his workstation to let person B pull directly from him.</p>
  
  <p>A and B is hacking away, person C sees the activity on github and clones, eager to check out whats going on. Meanwhile A and B concludes its a horribly solution and <strong>deletes the branch</strong>. But person C manages to turn the idea into something great and wants to share. Merging hell begins as C's branch no longer have a common ancestor with his merge target.</p>
  
  <hr>
  
  <p>Im curios to see how this scenario should have been handled.</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>Is there an accepted naming convention for branches to indicate that - even though pushed - this branch may very well be completely oblitered. A way for person A to indicate that <em>"if you pull from this, I cannot guarantee continued happiness"</em>.</li>
  <li>Or is there even a way (command) in git that lets me sort of <em>tag</em> branches as throw away?</li>
  <li>Is it simply never, regardless of circumstances, accepted to alter a git history if someone <em>could</em> have pulled from it?</li>
  <li>Should person A have taken the time to properly configure his workstation to let person B pull directly from him? Thus going in the dark, not letting anyone else know what they are working on.</li>
  <li>Maybe the only viable solution is good old fashioned communication; just talk to you peers.</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>And if all else fails, what is the proper strategy for person C in this case? How can the changes be properly applied when your work is done in a disconnected graph?</p>