From: Tor Arntsen <tor@spacetec.no>
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:28:25 GMT
Subject: Re: Find out on which branch a commit was originally made
Message-ID: <AANLkTim4cqAhWPTY5tSsFq7S1A_f=9QFy=3Mrp9ZFwXT@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTiknoBS7x2za3qzghfS0TD6UUL83eoZz7LFBPUuc@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:58, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com> wrote:
[..]
> What Git *does* track however when you do `git merge topic` is the
> name of the `topic` branch you're merging into some other branch,
> e.g. here (from git-merge(1)):
>
>                     A---B---C topic
>                    /         \
>               D---E---F---G---H master
>
> Even though A B and C might have been commited on branches called
> `blah`, `bluh` and `blarghl` you'll never know. You'll just know that
> someone put them all together on a branch called `topic` and that
> someone later merged that into master in the main repository. E.g.:
>
>    Merge: A G
>    Author: Some Guy <some-guy@example.com>
>    Date:   <....>
>
>        Merge branch 'topic'
>
> >From there you can *infer* that A-B-C came from the topic branch,
> because of that merge commit and that the DAG doesn't meet master
> until commit E.
[..]

However, you can see it explictly if you add --log when merging, i.e.
git merge --no-ff --log topic
(you'll get a list of one-line commit messages from those commits
merged into master from topic).
It doesn't identify the commits, only the commit messages. Therefore I
add problem report IDs into my oneline-messages, and I get a shortlist
of exactly what was fixed by a given merge. This is sufficient support
for me, I too don't care where a commit _originally_ came from, before
it arrived into the branch that I at some point merge to the delivery
branch.

-Tor