Re: Feature request: "author branch" in commit object
- From
Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jul 4, 2013, 00:00 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAH5451kq-zmy1kFFqx44ba4iM+H4zCF2J3GMc2ppcmoz5=urXA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vli5nfquq.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On 4 July 2013 09:46, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
Show 9 quoted lines
> Junio C Hamano <gitster <at> pobox.com> writes: >> 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).
How do users who wish to keep a record of branch names find out that --no-ff will enable this behaviour?
Is this a common enough requirement to make --no-ff the default behaviour (probably not, and that transition would be painful)?
What are the shortcomings of using --no-ff in the analogue to how mercurials named branches work?
I think the git-flow and git-list style workflows have done a lot to promote a set of usage patterns that keep this metadata around, I just wonder if we can do more to assist users in what seems to be a relatively common request.
Regards,
Andrew Ardill