Hey Jonathan, Thanks for the quick reply. I think that's a great message; I do have to say that I wouldn't have known what the `matching` and `simple` modes are without that message; I just had to look it up is all. It may be helpful to tell users that `simple` is probably what they want :) @DanyJoumaa 1 520 991 5001 On Jul 3, 2013, at 4:46 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > [I'm sorry about breaking Cc: chain - responding via GMane web interface] > > Junio C Hamano <gitster <at> pobox.com> writes: >> Ed Hutchins <eh <at> demeterr.com> writes: >> >>> I'm not trying to change the way git does things (which works perfectly >>> well), I'm asking for some extra information to be added to the commit >>> so that analysis of the ancestry graph can be tied to the branch topics >>> that the original author was working from. [...] > [...] >> 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). > > -- > Jakub Narębski > > -- > 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 -- 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