Re: Recording the current branch on each commit?

From: David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
Date: Apr 28, 2014, 09:02 UTC
Message-ID: <87r44h6d47.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org>
In-Reply-To: <535E1622.70608@game-point.net>

Jeremy Morton <admin@game-point.net> writes:

Show 12 quoted lines

> On 28/04/2014 09:32, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>>> some people to is to always merge with --no-ff, that way you see the branch
>>>> name in the merge commit.
>>>
>>> But surely, it's recommended with Git that you try to avoid doing
>>> --no-ff merges to avoid commit noise?
>>
>> Nope. Different people have different needs, there's no recommendation. If
>> anything, the recommendation is to do a ff merge, because that's the default.
>
> That's what I'm saying.  With an ff merge, you don't get the merge
> commit message telling you the branch name.

And I don't _want_ that branch name to be recorded. The whole point of a distributed version control system is that it's nobody else's business how I organize my work before submitting it.

I don't want to have people tell me when submitting patches "but can't you give this a better branch name?" and then have to use git filter-branch or whatever else to get the branch name removed.

> As I said before, I usually consider my branch names useful
> information worth keeping around - I'm not sure why you don't.

It is _totally_ useless information in a distributed development model. Why would or should anybody be concerned what private branches some submitter has developed his patches in?

This is not a useful part of a commit.

-- 
David Kastrup