From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Kastrup Subject: Re: Recording the current branch on each commit? Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:02:16 +0200 Message-ID: <87r44h6d47.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <535C47BF.2070805@game-point.net> <1748955386.11457068.1398588660139.JavaMail.zimbra@dewire.com> <535D3DF8.4020904@game-point.net> <535e12389eb8d_338911e930c9c@nysa.notmuch> <535E1622.70608@game-point.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Cc: Felipe Contreras , git@vger.kernel.org To: Jeremy Morton X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 28 11:02:27 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WehSC-0004No-4J for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:02:24 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754269AbaD1JCU (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:02:20 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([208.118.235.10]:58460 "EHLO fencepost.gnu.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754252AbaD1JCS (ORCPT ); Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:02:18 -0400 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:57501 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WehS5-000332-04; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 05:02:17 -0400 Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 83F99E05FE; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:02:16 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <535E1622.70608@game-point.net> (Jeremy Morton's message of "Mon, 28 Apr 2014 09:49:38 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.4.50 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jeremy Morton writes: > 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. And I don't _want_ that branch name to be recorded. The whole point of a distributed version control system is that it's nobody else's business how I organize my work before submitting it. I don't want to have people tell me when submitting patches "but can't you give this a better branch name?" and then have to use git filter-branch or whatever else to get the branch name removed. > As I said before, I usually consider my branch names useful > information worth keeping around - I'm not sure why you don't. It is _totally_ useless information in a distributed development model. Why would or should anybody be concerned what private branches some submitter has developed his patches in? This is not a useful part of a commit. -- David Kastrup