BitBucket Offers Git Support

[Kagamin]

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.