Re: Feature request:
lol, confusion abound. this message was intended to be in response to "Re: Feature request: prevent push -f from pushing all branches at once"
On Jul 3, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Dany <nessup@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 37 quoted lines
> Hey Jonathan,
>
> Thanks for the quick reply. I think that's a great message; I do have to say that I wouldn't have known what the `matching` and `simple` modes are without that message; I just had to look it up is all. It may be helpful to tell users that `simple` is probably what they want :)
>
> @DanyJoumaa
> 1 520 991 5001
>
> On Jul 3, 2013, at 4:46 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> [I'm sorry about breaking Cc: chain - responding via GMane web interface]
>>
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster <at> pobox.com> writes:
>>> Ed Hutchins <eh <at> demeterr.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I'm not trying to change the way git does things (which works perfectly
>>>> well), I'm asking for some extra information to be added to the commit
>>>> so that analysis of the ancestry graph can be tied to the branch topics
>>>> that the original author was working from. [...]
>> [...]
>>> It is not just misleading but is actively wrong to recording the
>>> name of the original branch in commits and carrying them forward via
>>> rebase. If you want a record of what a group of commits were about,
>>> the right time to do so is when you merge.
>> [...]
>>
>> There is even git-resurrect.sh script in 'contrib/' that makes
>> use of that practice to find merged-in and deleted branches,
>> and resurrect them (among other tools).
>>
>> --
>> Jakub Narębski
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>