On 21 November 2012 11:13, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer <perezme...@gmail.com> wrote: > ... > Well, two ideas come to my mind: > > - detect when using git flow (.git/config contains [gitflow "some_branch"] > entries).
I guess this part is just so the next part can be done automatically? > - Show "swim-lane"-like graphs, including branches that may not be present, > but where there (release branches often are created and merged back, for > example) I think this could be useful in general, however it might struggle with already merged branches. I may be mistaken here, however I think in general there is no way to specify which commits belonged to a certain branch after they have been merged, as branch information is not kept in the commit object. There may be some exceptions that make it feasible at times, but a general solution would be to show any merged branches as part of the same swim-lane, as per current behaviour, but to have separate branch heads in different swim-lanes. This would be a nice feature, and is similar to the behaviour in, for example, Atlassian's Fisheye repository viewer and the GitHub network view. Regards, Andrew Ardill -- 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
