Hey Jonathan,

Thanks for the quick reply. I think that's a great message; I do have to say 
that I wouldn't have known what the `matching` and `simple` modes are without 
that message; I just had to look it up is all. It may be helpful to tell users 
that `simple` is probably what they want :)

@DanyJoumaa
1 520 991 5001

On Jul 3, 2013, at 4:46 PM, Jakub Narebski <jna...@gmail.com> wrote:

> [I'm sorry about breaking Cc: chain - responding via GMane web interface]
> 
> Junio C Hamano <gitster <at> pobox.com> writes:
>> Ed Hutchins <eh <at> demeterr.com> writes:
>> 
>>> I'm not trying to change the way git does things (which works perfectly
>>> well), I'm asking for some extra information to be added to the commit
>>> so that analysis of the ancestry graph can be tied to the branch topics
>>> that the original author was working from. [...]
> [...]
>> It is not just misleading but is actively wrong to recording the
>> name of the original branch in commits and carrying them forward via
>> rebase. If you want a record of what a group of commits were about,
>> the right time to do so is when you merge.
> [...]
> 
> There is even git-resurrect.sh script in 'contrib/' that makes
> use of that practice to find merged-in and deleted branches,
> and resurrect them (among other tools).
> 
> -- 
> Jakub Narębski
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to