BitBucket Offers Git Support

[Alex Rønne Petersen]

On 02-11-2011 18:59, Kagamin wrote:
> 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.

I don't understand what point you're trying to argue. :)

- Alex