[ezst]

> I think there are (or perhaps were) some product issues regarding the specifics of various workflows.

I love jumping in discussions about git branching, because that's a very objective and practical area where git made the playing field worse. Less and less people feel it, because people old-enough to have used branch-powered VCSes have long forgotten about them, and those who didn't forget are under-represented in comparison to the newcomers who never have experienced anything else since git became a monopoly.

Anyhow, let's pick django as a project that was using a VCS with branches before moving to git/github, and have a look at the repo history: https://github.com/django/django/commits/stable/6.0.x

Yes, every commit is prefixed with the branch name. Because, unlike mercurial, git is incapable of storing this in its commit metadata. That's ridiculous, that's obscene, but that's the easiest way to do it with git.

[jstimpfle]

Just because there is one project apparently using this in a way that indicates someone could perceive something as a weakness... It doesn't mean it's a real weakness (nor that it's serious).

You can just not move branches. But once you can do it, you will like it. And you are going to use

   git branch --contains COMMIT

which will tell you ALL the branches a commit is part of.

Git's model is clean and simple, and makes a whole lot of sense. IMHO.

[jstimpfle]

> Less and less people feel it, because people old-enough to have used branch-powered VCSes have long forgotten about them, and those who didn't forget are under-represented in comparison to the newcomers who never have experienced anything else since git became a monopoly.

I'm old enough to have used SVN (and some CVS) and let me tell you branching was no fun, so much that we didn't really do it.