Re: Recording the current branch on each commit?

[Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

Jeremy Morton wrote:
> On 27/04/2014 09:51, Robin Rosenberg wrote:
> >> Currently, git records a checksum, author, commit date/time, and commit
> >> message with every commit (as get be seen from 'git log').  I think it
> >> would be useful if, along with the Author and Date, git recorded the
> >> name of the current branch on each commit.  The branch name can provide
> >> useful contextual information.  For instance, let's say I'm developing a
> >> suite of games.  If the commit message says "Added basic options
> >> dialog", it might be useful to see that the branch name is
> >> "pacman-minigame" indicating that the commit pertains to the options
> >> dialog in the Pacman minigame.  Basically, I'm saying that well-named
> >> branches can and do carry useful contextual information that oughtn't to
> >> be thrown away.  Currently, when you delete that branch, you lose the
> >> branch name altogether.
> >>
> >> So what do you think?  Would it be good to have a patch to add this feature?
> >
> > Branch names are usually poorly named, so often you don't lose much. One way
> 
> Speak for yourself - I give my branches useful names.  :-)

Me too.

> I definitely feel that I am often losing useful contextual information by
> throwing away the branch name.

I don't.

> > 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.

> 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?

-- 
Felipe Contreras