Jesse Phillips Wrote: > You are both correct, but due to git's high level once you do a merge you > don't see the history as multiple branches. A merge commit will reference > both branch data as its parent. The branch name can then be removed and its > history remain part of the master branch. > > Also if you merge in a branch that is a direct descendant the merge is a > "Fast-Forward" which just means make master point to ____ commit. This makes > it common to always commit non-master branch, and still a merge commit isn't > required.
Do I understand it right, that "sacred history problem" is a problem only for git due to how it implements merges? Also if you can always fast forward the main branch, does it mean the project is small, i.e. ~1 man is working on it?
