On 4 July 2013 09:46, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 -- 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