On 27/04/2014 09:51, Robin Rosenberg wrote:
Currently, git records a checksum, author, commit date/time, and commit
message with every commit (as get be seen from 'git log'). I think it
would be useful if, along with the Author and Date, git recorded the
name of the current branch on each commit. The branch name can provide
useful contextual information. For instance, let's say I'm developing a
suite of games. If the commit message says "Added basic options
dialog", it might be useful to see that the branch name is
"pacman-minigame" indicating that the commit pertains to the options
dialog in the Pacman minigame. Basically, I'm saying that well-named
branches can and do carry useful contextual information that oughtn't to
be thrown away. Currently, when you delete that branch, you lose the
branch name altogether.
So what do you think? Would it be good to have a patch to add this feature?
Branch names are usually poorly named, so often you don't lose much. One way
Speak for yourself - I give my branches useful names. :-) I definitely
feel that I am often losing useful contextual information by throwing
away the branch name.
some people to is to always merge with --no-ff, that way you see the branch
name in the merge commit.
But surely, it's recommended with Git that you try to avoid doing
--no-ff merges to avoid commit noise? Also, it is a lot more hassle
(and no doubt, CPU cycles) to track down where a branch was merged to
try and figure out which branch name a commit pertained to, not to
mention the fact that the commit could've been moved since. Nothing
short of tagging the commit with the branch name when the commit is made
will definitely record the branch name at the time of committing.
A very popular way of tracking context is to add some id, such as a bugzilla issue
number, to the header or footer of the commit message. Often a branch contains many
issues, but the branch itself isn't very interesting. Tools like gitblit, gitweb,
gerrit etc can easily be configured to link to the issue using a regular expression.
Yes, and I have done this kind of thing in the past. However you really
don't want to put the bug# on every single commit pertaining to that
bug; you have to go to the effort of looking the bug# up every time,
you'll sometimes forget, and besides it takes up space that could be
used for a commit message. As short commit messages are valued in Git,
it's particularly bad to waste space this way. Much better would be to
include the bug# as part of the branch name, and then if you record the
branch name upon checkin you always get a reference to the bug#.
Also, you don't always have something you can link a commit to in an
issue tracker. You may just be implementing a feature that has been
agreed upon, independently of any such tracker. In that case, there's
no bug# to link to.
--
Best regards,
Jeremy Morton (Jez)
--
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