On 02-11-2011 18:59, Kagamin wrote:
Alex R�nne Petersen Wrote:
On 02-11-2011 17:03, Kagamin wrote:
The merge itself can be a commit (if you use git merge instead of git
pull), but there is no reason to eliminate the *entire* history when
pulling in a branch.
Isn't the merge commit connected with the branch it was merged from? So if you
want history of the branch, it's still there, it's just not main's history.
An example from Fossil:
20 recent commits: http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline
20 recent commits in trunk:
http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?r=trunk
That only makes sense if you keep the branches around after they're
'dead', which is considered a bad practice, as it will eventually grow
confusing.
They're not dead. They're history.
I don't understand what point you're trying to argue. :)
- Alex
