Re: Recording the current branch on each commit?

[Jeremy Morton <admin@game-point.net>]

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

>> 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)