[hhjinks]

Which branch your work was done on is noise, not signal. There is absolutely zero signal lost by rebasing, and it prunes a lot of noise. If your branch somehow carries information, that information should be in your commit message.

[ratchetclank]

I disagree, without this info, I can't easily tell if any commit is part of a feature or is a simple hotfix. I need to rely on the commiter to include the info in the commit message, which is almost always not the case.

[pluralmonad]

But you are still relying on them to name the branch in such a way it encodes that info. It is unclear why this is superior to messages in commits.

[globular-toast]

It's worse than that: the branch name is lost after a merge. That "merge branch xyz" is simply the default commit message. So it doesn't matter what you do, commit messages are all you have!

[yxhuvud]

Nothing stops you from doing both renade and merge commits.

Except perhaps crappy gui options in GitHub. I really wish they added that option as a button.