Jeremy Morton wrote: > On 27/04/2014 10:09, Johan Herland wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 1:56 AM, Jeremy Morton<admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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. > > > > This has been discussed multiple times in the past. One example here: > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/229422 > > > > I believe the current conclusion (if any) is that encoding such > > information as a _structural_ part of the commit object is not useful. > > See the old thread(s) for the actual pro/con arguments. > > As far as I can tell from that discussion, the general opposition to > encoding the branch name as a structural part of the commit object is > that, for some people's workflows, it would be unhelpful and/or > misleading. s/some people's workflows/most workflows/ > Well fair enough then - why don't we make it a setting that > is off by default, and can easily be switched on? That way the people > for whom tagging the branch name would be useful have a very easy way to > switch it on. I know that for the workflows I personally have used in > the past, such tagging would be very useful. Quite often I have been > looking through the Git log and wondered what feature a commit was "part > of", because I have feature branches. Just knowing that branch name > would be really useful, but the branch has since been deleted... and in > the case of a ff-merge (which I thought was recommended in Git if > possible), the branch name is completely gone. I still don't see why you would need that information, but if you really need it, you can write a commit hook that stores that information in the message, it's very trivial. Also, you can store that information in notes. > You can go back through the history and find "Merge branch > 'pacman-minigame'", but how do you know which commit was the *start* of that > branch, if they are not tagged with the branch name? By recording the start of the branch. [1] https://github.com/felipec/git/commits/fc/tail -- Felipe Contreras -- 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