lol, confusion abound. this message was intended to be in response to "Re: Feature request: prevent push -f from pushing all branches at once" On Jul 3, 2013, at 4:52 PM, Dany <nessup@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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