Hacker News Reader

I get close to the milestone-ish commit by opening feature branches and then merging with no fast forward. All commits in the main branch are merges, and all of those are features. The feature incremental commits go in the branch.

It's ok, I'd just like to be able to apply this structure to stuff like bisect or blame.

View on HN

Doesn't `git blame --first-parent` work for that? From my quick tests, it seems like it shows the merge commit if you have such a structure (`--first-parent` also works for `git log` etc)

Totally does (though your maintainer has to care about first-parentage order, which they should, and which should be enforced by the software but isn't - see Junio's blogpost "fun with non-fast-forward", or "fun with --first-parent" for more basic info)

And this: http://bit-booster.blogspot.ca/2016/02/no-foxtrots-allowed.h...

(p.s. your old comment on "git branching models" that starts "Not another one. All good git workflows are different..." was hilarious/awesome - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11193048.)

Thanks. Git superstitions bug me a lot because it shouldn't have to be this way.

Thanks! It does. Learning something everyday.

Yeah exactly -- if git knew about a milestone point, then "git bisect" could tie into it. That in and of itself would be fantastic.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com