Subject: Re: Recording the current branch on each commit?

From: Jeremy Morton <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:17:33 +0100

On 28/04/2014 10:01, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Jeremy Morton wrote:
>> On 27/04/2014 20:33, Johan Herland wrote:
>>> The problem is not really "less tidy commit trees" - by which I gather
>>> you mean history graphs that are non-linear. IMHO, the history graph
>>> should reflect parallel/branched development when that is useful.
>>> Blindly rebasing everything into a single line is IMHO just as bad as
>>> doing all your work directly on master and blindly running "git pull"
>>> between each of your own commits (which results in a lot of useless
>>> merges). The merge commits themselves are not the problem. Merge
>>> commits are a tool, and when used properly (to introduce topics to the
>>> master branch like described above) they are a good tool. When abused
>>> (like blindly running "git pull" and accepting useless "merge
>>> bubbles") they create more problems than they solve.
>>
>> Sounds like the default behaviour of "git pull" might not be ideal if it
>> easily causes these problems.
>
> It's not idea. Virtually everyone agrees with that, even Linus Torvalds, and we
> have the patches to fix it, but it's not going to change.
>
> The Git project doesn't welcome change.

Well, you sure don't seem to.  Why are there so many "no-can-do" people 
on this list?  :-)

-- 
Best regards,
Jeremy Morton (Jez)