Re: Feature request: "author branch" in commit object

[Andrew Ardill <andrew.ardill@gmail.com>]

On 4 July 2013 09:46, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster <at> pobox.com> writes:
>> 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).

How do users who wish to keep a record of branch names find out that
--no-ff will enable this behaviour?

Is this a common enough requirement to make --no-ff the default
behaviour (probably not, and that transition would be painful)?

What are the shortcomings of using --no-ff in the analogue to how
mercurials named branches work?

I think the git-flow and git-list style workflows have done a lot to
promote a set of usage patterns that keep this metadata around, I just
wonder if we can do more to assist users in what seems to be a
relatively common request.

Regards,

Andrew Ardill