On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:48:59PM -0700, Brian Jones wrote: > In out of the box git, do commits remember the name of the branch that > created them? If so, what command can I use to see that information? My > assumption is that commits do not record branch names but I want > confirmation.
They do not. Remember that Git was concieved with the Linux kernel in mind, and its development uses a hierarchical approach where patches flow through many staging trees so that names of actual branches in each of them have no sense at all to the final result (look at the tree picture at [1] to get better idea of that). For small projects, the idea of keeping track of the originating branch is not really so absurd, so some sort of a policy might be used for this. For instance, a prefix codifying a feature being developed might be inserted in commit messages' headers. Or a prepare-commit-msg hook might be used to automatically insert some custom field in commit messages. Another approach (described in [2], for instance) is to never use fast-forward merges of feature branches back into their originating branches, and describe the feature in the integration merge commit. This is not a solution to the problem as stated, but if you just want better understanding of the project's history, this might be the way to go. 1. http://lwn.net/Articles/318699/ 2. http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
