From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:26:17 GMT Subject: Re: Find out on which branch a commit was originally made) (was ANNOUNCE git-what-branch) Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <32741263.335615.1285247653984.JavaMail.root@mail.hq.genarts.com> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 13:14, Stephen Bash wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Seth Robertson" >> To: "Artur Skawina" >> Cc: "Stefan Haller" , git@vger.kernel.org >> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 7:26:19 PM >> Subject: Re: Find out on which branch a commit was originally made) (was ANNOUNCE git-what-branch) >> >> ... I wanted something completely different. Something more >> like: if a bug was introduced in commit X, what releases or branches >> has it contaminated (or more positively, if a feature was introduced, >> where was it made available). The simple case is figuring out on >> which branch a commit was originally made. > Wait... When you restate the problem that way, isn't > git-{branch,tag} --contains the right answer?  I'm curious how you > (and others) would differentiate the approaches... git-{branch,tag} *is* the right answer, the problem here was that the original reporter wanted to *delete* the original branch, or otherwise not make it available, but still find out what it was. The workaround is to walk the tree from a merge commit, but I think a better solution is to just push the refs to your topic branches somewhere and keep them in an archive/ namespace. Then if you need to go digging you can always add the archive as a remote and go git-{branch,tag} --contains.