Re: Recording the current branch on each commit?

On 28/04/2014 09:32, Felipe Contreras wrote:

quoted

quoted

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?

Nope. Different people have different needs, there's no recommendation. If
anything, the recommendation is to do a ff merge, because that's the default.

That's what I'm saying.  With an ff merge, you don't get the merge 
commit message telling you the branch name.

quoted

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.

But why do you need that information?

As I said before, I usually consider my branch names useful information 
worth keeping around - I'm not sure why you don't.  I might include a 
bug# in the branch name so I don't have to keep typing it in every 
commit message, or I might just have a handy short description of what 
part of the application this branch is modifying (like my 
"pacman-minigame" example).

-- 
Best regards,
Jeremy Morton (Jez)