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

From: David Kastrup <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 11:02:16 +0200

Jeremy Morton <[email-masked]> 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