rationale behind git not tracking history of branches

[Kevin Buchs <kevin.buchs@newcontext.com>]

For many years of using Git, I always struggled to make sense of
commit history graphs (git log --graph; gitk). Just recently I
discovered that git does not track the history of branches to which
commits belonged and the lightbulb turned on. This is proving to be
painful in a project I inherited with permanent multiple branches.
Now, I am a bit curious as to the rationale behind this intentional
decision not to track branch history. Is it entirely a matter of
keeping branches lightweight?

I am assuming one can backfill for the missing capability by using a
commit hook to manually track when a branch head is changed. Perhaps
by storing the branch in the commit notes.

Kevin Buchs, Senior Engineer, New Context Services
kevin.buchs@newcontext.com  507-251-7463  St. Cloud, MN