Alex R�nne Petersen Wrote: > On 02-11-2011 17:03, Kagamin wrote: > >>> The merge itself can be a commit (if you use git merge instead of git > >>> pull), but there is no reason to eliminate the *entire* history when > >>> pulling in a branch. > >> > >> Isn't the merge commit connected with the branch it was merged from? So if > >> you want history of the branch, it's still there, it's just not main's > >> history. > > > > An example from Fossil: > > 20 recent commits: http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline > > 20 recent commits in trunk: > > http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?r=trunk > > That only makes sense if you keep the branches around after they're > 'dead', which is considered a bad practice, as it will eventually grow > confusing.
They're not dead. They're history.
