Wondering if we could make a habit of (signed) tags when merging branches? Because the norm is to rebase all the commits on top of master (as opposed to just merging the branch), it requires some guesswork and cognitive load to figure out where a exactly a branch was merged.
With (signed) tags, this would be easy to see in "git log" and presumably other ways of viewing the git history. Presuming that such merges are tracked in a pull request, I could see tags something along the lines of: BRANCH-PULLREQUESTNUMBER or: TEAM-PULLREQUESTNUMBER Embedding the pull request would make it fairly easy to look up more information if needed... and with signed tags, you could include the full URL in the tag message. Also makes it easy to see who actually performed the merge, although that might be inferrable from the top commit in most cases. Basically every time I see a bunch of missing substitutes, I wonder "Did some major change get merged recently?" and this would allow for a trivial way to investigate... live well, vagrant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
