Hi Junio, It really depends how git is used. With big collaborative project (like git or linux kernel), you are totally right. for development limited to a company that has developments with team of 10-20 developers and that uses a correct SCM plan, the name of the branch is regulated and is meaningful, mostly linked to a bug tracking system system. For audits and traceability, the branch name is really important... certainly more than the email of the developer ;-) So the "contamination" is negligible compare to the bentefit in this context. It will also helps the graphical tools to have a comprehensive representation which can do git even better. If you think it is a bad idea to have it by default, what about an option to activate this functionality ? Today with the patch I've done, it is not a problem if there is no branchname in the commit. The only thing is the "%Xb" placeholder. I would like to have your advice about the name because I have added the "branch" metadata but, even it is really the name of the branch, I think it too "hard". I preferred "BranchOfCommit" or something similar that is more explicit... I think this one is too heavy. Do you have other suggestions ? Thanks for your feedback . Le lun. 30 déc. 2019 à 00:20, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit : > > Arnaud Bertrand <xda@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > I understood that in git philosophy, once it is merged, a branch can > > disappear. But for a lot of companies, a SCM is also a guardian of the > > history. > > A lot more important point than "once it is merged" is that the > branch identity is strictly local to your repository. Contaminating > the object header, which is cast in stone and cannot be modified > after the fact, with such a piece of information will not mix well > with the rest of Git, so ... > >
