Re: Preserving branches after merging on ancestor

["Björn Steinbrink" <B.Steinbrink@gmx.de>]

On 2009.11.07 09:11:11 +0530, Dilip M wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:51 PM, rhlee <richard@webdezign.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > Hi John, Björn and Eric,
> >
> > Thank you very much for your replies from which I gained a lot
> > insight about git merging and different workflows.
> >
> > Yes, I have tried out --no-ff and it does the job for me.
> > (Incidentally, doing that take it look neater in git gui as all the
> > master nodes appear on top of each other. Using empty commits, the
> > merged branches appear on top the master nodes in the graph.)
> 
> Thanks to Richard, John, Björn, and Eric.
> 
> I had a similar _confusion_ looking looking at graph. I always use
> "log --graph --pretty=oneline". Now I have _opted_ to pull/merge with
> '--no-ff', to keep the graph plain and simple for non-power users :)

Just be careful with that. There are situations in which you clearly
don't want --no-ff, see the "working on a topic branch on multiple
boxes" example I gave in the mail I sent a minute ago. ;-)

Björn