I'm trying to pursuade my co-workers to switch from Subversion to Git; some of them prefer Mercurial. One concern that they are raising is that in Git there doesn't seem to be an easy way to find out on which branch a given commit was originally made, after the branch is merged back and deleted. They consider this a show-stopper. In Mercurial, branch information is meta data attached to each commit, so you can easily get this information even after a branch is closed. Three questions: 1) Is this not something that Git users miss sometimes? Why not? 2) Is there an easy way to get this information that I might have missed? (Typical use-case: you blame a line of code with git gui blame, choose "Show history context" to show the changeset in gitk, and from there you want to go up to the next merge commit to see if the merge commit message mentions the name of the branch. I can't seem to figure out how to find this merge commit in gitk, and besides, "Show history context" shows me only 7 days of context by default, so the merge commit is likely not to be in my current list anyway.) 3) As a possible work-around, they suggest to require encoding the branch information in some format in the commit messages, maybe automatically with a commit-msg hook. Does this sound like a feasible idea? One drawback would be that it becomes awkward when you accidentally make a commit on the wrong branch, and want to rebase it onto the correct one. Any insights and thoughts about this are much appreciated. Thanks, Stefan -- Stefan Haller Berlin, Germany http://www.haller-berlin.de/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html