Say I bisect some issue to a particular commit. Knowing which branch it was made on tells me what issue it was trying to solve, which gives me context for the entire branch.
It also means I can easily request all commits made in the master branch, to see what features were merged in recently.
> Say I bisect some issue to a particular commit. Knowing which branch it was made on tells me what issue it was trying to solve, which gives me context for the entire branch.
How is the branch name going to give you sufficient information on that anyway? You're going to have to look at the commit message and probably the surrounding history anyway if you want context for the entire branch.
> It also means I can easily request all commits made in the master branch, to see what features were merged in recently.
In this use-case, you're probably viewing some form of "git log" anyway, so it's not hard to turn on the option that shows the tree view, which should make it readily obvious.
>How is the branch name going to give you sufficient information on that anyway?
Well, in my workflow it will give me the issue number, since branches in my repo all look like '530-issue-description'. I suppose that's because we used to work with mercurial, where that is actually meaningful and helpful.
>In this use-case, you're probably viewing some form of "git log" anyway, so it's not hard to turn on the option that shows the tree view, which should make it readily obvious
The tree view will still interleave master commits with all the other commits, and if there's a lot of parallel branches and significant distance between master commits it's easy to get lost.
Tracking your single 'pipe' character down a couple pages and not losing which one you're watching... Not what I call good UI.
It also means I can easily request all commits made in the master branch, to see what features were merged in recently.