3 ms·

I don't understand this argument at all. It seems to reduce to "shorter, more human-readable hashes mean I can use hashes all the time instead of named branches

I don't understand this argument at all. It seems to reduce to "shorter, more human-readable hashes mean I can use hashes all the time instead of named branches." Which seems kind of beside the point. You need named branches for reference and for other humans to interact with.

stouset 2y ago
Most times you don’t, though. If I open a pull request on GitHub, the name of the branch is completely incidental. I already have textual descriptions for every commit. The pull request gets a title and a description. The branch name is there, but if it wasn’t (or if it was nonsense) don’t think anybody would notice. Once the branch is merged the branch name is lost to git. It might be recorded in the merge commit description but at that point it’s flavor text and not actually a pointer within git. I have also fully converted to jj and yeah, it really does make you realize that branch names are often pointless for short-lived work in PR-based workflows.
- g-b-r 2y ago
  It is lost to git if you delete the branch...