Re: Tracking branch history

[Elrond <elrond+kernel.org@samba-tng.org>]

Daniel Barkalow <barkalow <at> iabervon.org> writes:

> 
> One feature that might make git more intuitive to people is if we were to 
> additionally track the history of what commit was the head of each branch 
> over time. This is only vaguely related to the history of the content, but 
> it's well-defined and sometimes significant.
> 
> E.g., if you know that two weeks ago, what you had worked, but it doesn't 
> work now, you can use git-bisect to figure out what happened, but first 
> you have to figure out what commit it was that you were using two weeks 
> ago. Two weeks ago, we had that information, but we didn't keep it.

On a related issue:

Looking at a commit:
   commit id-commit
   parent id-1
   parent id-2
   parent id-3

       Merge branch 'branch-2', 'branch-3'

One can tell the name of the branches for id-2 and id-3 (branch-2, 3),
but one can't tell the name of id-1.

At the time, those branches were not yet merged, this information was
available easily, even remotely via git-clone.