Git 2.36提出了一个更简单的命令:

(branch_A_tag)
     |
--X--A--B--C--D--F  (master) 
      \   / \   /
       \ /   \ /
        G--H--I--J  (branch A)

vonc@vclp MINGW64 ~/git/tests/branchOrigin (branch_A)
git log -1 --decorate --oneline \
  $(git rev-parse \
     $(git rev-list --exclude-first-parent-only ^main branch_A| tail -1)^ \
   )
 80e8436 (tag: branch_A_tag) A - Work in branch main

^main branch_A给出的是J—I—H—G -1得到G git rev-parse G^给你它的第一个父:A或branch_A_tag

使用测试脚本:

mkdir branchOrigin
cd branchOrigin
git init
git commit --allow-empty -m "X - Work in branch main"
git commit --allow-empty -m "A - Work in branch main"
git tag branch_A_tag     -m "Tag branch point of branch_A"
git commit --allow-empty -m "B - Work in branch main"
git switch -c branch_A branch_A_tag
git commit --allow-empty -m "G - Work in branch_A"
git switch main
git merge branch_A       -m "C - Merge branch_A into branch main"
git switch branch_A
git commit --allow-empty -m "H - Work in branch_A"
git merge main         -m "I - Merge main into branch_A"
git switch main
git commit --allow-empty -m "D - Work in branch main"
git merge branch_A       -m "F - Merge branch_A into branch main"
git switch branch_A
git commit --allow-empty -m "J - Work in branch_A branch"

这就给了你:

vonc@vclp MINGW64 ~/git/tests/branchOrigin (branch_A)
$ git log --oneline --decorate --graph --branches --all
* a55a87e (HEAD -> branch_A) J - Work in branch_A branch
| *   3769cc8 (main) F - Merge branch_A into branch main
| |\
| |/
|/|
* |   1b29fa5 I - Merge main into branch_A
|\ \
* | | e7accbd H - Work in branch_A
| | * 87a62f4 D - Work in branch main
| |/
| *   7bc79c5 C - Merge branch_A into branch main
| |\
| |/
|/|
* | 0f28c9f G - Work in branch_A
| * e897627 B - Work in branch main
|/
* 80e8436 (tag: branch_A_tag) A - Work in branch main
* 5cad19b X - Work in branch main

这是:

(branch_A_tag)
     |
--X--A--B--C--D--F  (master) 
      \   / \   /
       \ /   \ /
        G--H--I--J  (branch A)

---

在Git 2.36 (Q2 2022)中，“Git log”(man)和朋友们学习了一个选项——exclude-first-parent-only只沿着第一个父链向下传播UNINTERESTING位，就像——first-parent选项只显示在第一个父链上缺乏UNINTERESTING位的提交一样。

参见Jerry Zhang (Jerry -skydio)提交的9d505b7 (11 Jan 2022)。 (由Junio C Hamano—gitster—在commit 708cbef中合并，2022年2月17日)

Git-rev-list: add——exclude-first-parent-only标志 署名:Jerry Zhang

It is useful to know when a branch first diverged in history from some integration branch in order to be able to enumerate the user's local changes. However, these local changes can include arbitrary merges, so it is necessary to ignore this merge structure when finding the divergence point. In order to do this, teach the "rev-list" family to accept "--exclude-first-parent-only", which restricts the traversal of excluded commits to only follow first parent links. -A-----E-F-G--main \ / / B-C-D--topic In this example, the goal is to return the set {B, C, D} which represents a topic branch that has been merged into main branch. git rev-list topic ^main(man) will end up returning no commits since excluding main will end up traversing the commits on topic as well. git rev-list --exclude-first-parent-only topic ^main(man) however will return {B, C, D} as desired. Add docs for the new flag, and clarify the doc for --first-parent to indicate that it applies to traversing the set of included commits only.

Rev-list-options现在包括在它的手册页:

——“首席家长 当找到要包含的提交时，只遵循第一个 父节点在看到合并提交时提交。 这个选项 能给一个更好的概述时，查看的演变 一个特定的主题分支，因为合并到一个主题中 分支倾向于只调整到更新的上游 时不时地，这个选项可以让你忽略 个人的承诺被带入你的历史 一个合并。

Rev-list-options现在包括在它的手册页:

——exclude-first-parent-only 当发现提交排除(使用'{插入符号}')时，只跟随 第一个父节点在看到合并提交时提交。 这可用于查找主题分支中的更改集 从它与远分支的分歧点开始 任意的合并可以是有效的主题分支更改。

经过大量的研究和讨论，很明显没有什么灵丹妙药能在所有情况下都起作用，至少在当前版本的Git中不是这样。

这就是为什么我写了几个补丁，增加了尾巴分支的概念。每次创建分支时，也会创建一个指向原始点的指针，即tail ref。每当分支重基时，这个ref都会更新。

要找到devel分支的分支点，你所要做的就是使用develop @{tail}，就是这样。

https://github.com/felipec/git/commits/fc/tail

使用reflog似乎解决了这个问题git reflog <branchname>显示了所有的分支提交，包括创建分支。

这是来自一个分支，该分支在合并回主节点之前有2次提交。

git reflog june-browser-updates
b898b15 (origin/june-browser-updates, june-browser-updates) june-browser-updates@{0}: commit: sorted cve.csv
467ae0e june-browser-updates@{1}: commit: browser updates and cve additions
d6a37fb june-browser-updates@{2}: branch: Created from HEAD

Git 2.36提出了一个更简单的命令:

(branch_A_tag)
     |
--X--A--B--C--D--F  (master) 
      \   / \   /
       \ /   \ /
        G--H--I--J  (branch A)

vonc@vclp MINGW64 ~/git/tests/branchOrigin (branch_A)
git log -1 --decorate --oneline \
  $(git rev-parse \
     $(git rev-list --exclude-first-parent-only ^main branch_A| tail -1)^ \
   )
 80e8436 (tag: branch_A_tag) A - Work in branch main

^main branch_A给出的是J—I—H—G -1得到G git rev-parse G^给你它的第一个父:A或branch_A_tag

使用测试脚本:

mkdir branchOrigin
cd branchOrigin
git init
git commit --allow-empty -m "X - Work in branch main"
git commit --allow-empty -m "A - Work in branch main"
git tag branch_A_tag     -m "Tag branch point of branch_A"
git commit --allow-empty -m "B - Work in branch main"
git switch -c branch_A branch_A_tag
git commit --allow-empty -m "G - Work in branch_A"
git switch main
git merge branch_A       -m "C - Merge branch_A into branch main"
git switch branch_A
git commit --allow-empty -m "H - Work in branch_A"
git merge main         -m "I - Merge main into branch_A"
git switch main
git commit --allow-empty -m "D - Work in branch main"
git merge branch_A       -m "F - Merge branch_A into branch main"
git switch branch_A
git commit --allow-empty -m "J - Work in branch_A branch"

这就给了你:

vonc@vclp MINGW64 ~/git/tests/branchOrigin (branch_A)
$ git log --oneline --decorate --graph --branches --all
* a55a87e (HEAD -> branch_A) J - Work in branch_A branch
| *   3769cc8 (main) F - Merge branch_A into branch main
| |\
| |/
|/|
* |   1b29fa5 I - Merge main into branch_A
|\ \
* | | e7accbd H - Work in branch_A
| | * 87a62f4 D - Work in branch main
| |/
| *   7bc79c5 C - Merge branch_A into branch main
| |\
| |/
|/|
* | 0f28c9f G - Work in branch_A
| * e897627 B - Work in branch main
|/
* 80e8436 (tag: branch_A_tag) A - Work in branch main
* 5cad19b X - Work in branch main

这是:

(branch_A_tag)
     |
--X--A--B--C--D--F  (master) 
      \   / \   /
       \ /   \ /
        G--H--I--J  (branch A)

---

在Git 2.36 (Q2 2022)中，“Git log”(man)和朋友们学习了一个选项——exclude-first-parent-only只沿着第一个父链向下传播UNINTERESTING位，就像——first-parent选项只显示在第一个父链上缺乏UNINTERESTING位的提交一样。

参见Jerry Zhang (Jerry -skydio)提交的9d505b7 (11 Jan 2022)。 (由Junio C Hamano—gitster—在commit 708cbef中合并，2022年2月17日)

Git-rev-list: add——exclude-first-parent-only标志 署名:Jerry Zhang

It is useful to know when a branch first diverged in history from some integration branch in order to be able to enumerate the user's local changes. However, these local changes can include arbitrary merges, so it is necessary to ignore this merge structure when finding the divergence point. In order to do this, teach the "rev-list" family to accept "--exclude-first-parent-only", which restricts the traversal of excluded commits to only follow first parent links. -A-----E-F-G--main \ / / B-C-D--topic In this example, the goal is to return the set {B, C, D} which represents a topic branch that has been merged into main branch. git rev-list topic ^main(man) will end up returning no commits since excluding main will end up traversing the commits on topic as well. git rev-list --exclude-first-parent-only topic ^main(man) however will return {B, C, D} as desired. Add docs for the new flag, and clarify the doc for --first-parent to indicate that it applies to traversing the set of included commits only.

Rev-list-options现在包括在它的手册页:

——“首席家长 当找到要包含的提交时，只遵循第一个 父节点在看到合并提交时提交。 这个选项 能给一个更好的概述时，查看的演变 一个特定的主题分支，因为合并到一个主题中 分支倾向于只调整到更新的上游 时不时地，这个选项可以让你忽略 个人的承诺被带入你的历史 一个合并。

Rev-list-options现在包括在它的手册页:

——exclude-first-parent-only 当发现提交排除(使用'{插入符号}')时，只跟随 第一个父节点在看到合并提交时提交。 这可用于查找主题分支中的更改集 从它与远分支的分歧点开始 任意的合并可以是有效的主题分支更改。

要从分支点查找提交，可以使用这个。

git log --ancestry-path master..topicbranch

有时这实际上是不可能的(除了一些例外情况，您可能幸运地拥有额外的数据)，这里的解决方案不会起作用。

Git不保存历史引用(包括分支)。它只存储每个分支(头)的当前位置。这意味着随着时间的推移，你可能会丢失git中的一些分支历史。举个例子，每当你分支的时候，它就会立刻失去原来的那个分支。分支所做的就是:

git checkout branch1    # refs/branch1 -> commit1
git checkout -b branch2 # branch2 -> commit1

您可以假设第一个提交的是分支。情况往往如此，但也不总是如此。在上述操作之后，没有什么可以阻止您首先提交到任何一个分支。此外，git时间戳不能保证可靠。直到您对两者都做出承诺，它们才真正在结构上成为分支。

在图中，我们倾向于概念性地对提交进行编号，但是当提交树分支时，git没有真正稳定的序列概念。在这种情况下，您可以假设数字(表示顺序)是由时间戳决定的(当您将所有时间戳设置为相同时，看看git UI如何处理事情可能会很有趣)。

这是人类在概念上的期望:

After branch:
       C1 (B1)
      /
    -
      \
       C1 (B2)
After first commit:
       C1 (B1)
      /
    - 
      \
       C1 - C2 (B2)

这是你实际得到的结果:

After branch:
    - C1 (B1) (B2)
After first commit (human):
    - C1 (B1)
        \
         C2 (B2)
After first commit (real):
    - C1 (B1) - C2 (B2)

你会假设B1是原来的分支，但实际上它可能只是一个死分支(有人签出了-b，但从未提交给它)。直到你提交这两个，你才会在git中得到一个合法的分支结构:

Either:
      / - C2 (B1)
    -- C1
      \ - C3 (B2)
Or:
      / - C3 (B1)
    -- C1
      \ - C2 (B2)

You always know that C1 came before C2 and C3 but you never reliably know if C2 came before C3 or C3 came before C2 (because you can set the time on your workstation to anything for example). B1 and B2 is also misleading as you can't know which branch came first. You can make a very good and usually accurate guess at it in many cases. It is a bit like a race track. All things generally being equal with the cars then you can assume that a car that comes in a lap behind started a lap behind. We also have conventions that are very reliable, for example master will nearly always represent the longest lived branches although sadly I have seen cases where even this is not the case.

这里给出的例子是一个保存历史的例子:

Human:
    - X - A - B - C - D - F (B1)
           \     / \     /
            G - H ----- I - J (B2)
Real:
            B ----- C - D - F (B1)
           /       / \     /
    - X - A       /   \   /
           \     /     \ /
            G - H ----- I - J (B2)

Real here is also misleading because we as humans read it left to right, root to leaf (ref). Git does not do that. Where we do (A->B) in our heads git does (A<-B or B->A). It reads it from ref to root. Refs can be anywhere but tend to be leafs, at least for active branches. A ref points to a commit and commits only contain a like to their parent/s, not to their children. When a commit is a merge commit it will have more than one parent. The first parent is always the original commit that was merged into. The other parents are always commits that were merged into the original commit.

Paths:
    F->(D->(C->(B->(A->X)),(H->(G->(A->X))))),(I->(H->(G->(A->X))),(C->(B->(A->X)),(H->(G->(A->X)))))
    J->(I->(H->(G->(A->X))),(C->(B->(A->X)),(H->(G->(A->X)))))

这不是一个非常有效的表示，而是git可以从每个ref (B1和B2)中获得的所有路径的表达式。

Git的内部存储看起来更像这样(并不是A作为父文件出现了两次):

    F->D,I | D->C | C->B,H | B->A | A->X | J->I | I->H,C | H->G | G->A

如果你转储一个原始的git提交，你会看到零或多个父字段。如果为0，则表示没有父节点，提交的是根节点(实际上可以有多个根节点)。如果有一个，这意味着没有合并，它不是根提交。如果有多个，则意味着提交是合并的结果，第一个之后的所有父节点都是合并提交。

Paths simplified:
    F->(D->C),I | J->I | I->H,C | C->(B->A),H | H->(G->A) | A->X
Paths first parents only:
    F->(D->(C->(B->(A->X)))) | F->D->C->B->A->X
    J->(I->(H->(G->(A->X))) | J->I->H->G->A->X
Or:
    F->D->C | J->I | I->H | C->B->A | H->G->A | A->X
Paths first parents only simplified:
    F->D->C->B->A | J->I->->G->A | A->X
Topological:
    - X - A - B - C - D - F (B1)
           \
            G - H - I - J (B2)

When both hit A their chain will be the same, before that their chain will be entirely different. The first commit another two commits have in common is the common ancestor and from whence they diverged. there might be some confusion here between the terms commit, branch and ref. You can in fact merge a commit. This is what merge really does. A ref simply points to a commit and a branch is nothing more than a ref in the folder .git/refs/heads, the folder location is what determines that a ref is a branch rather than something else such as a tag.

你丢失历史的地方是合并会根据情况做两件事中的一件。

考虑:

      / - B (B1)
    - A
      \ - C (B2)

在这种情况下，任何一个方向的合并都将创建一个新的提交，其中第一个父节点作为当前检出分支指向的提交，第二个父节点作为您合并到当前分支的分支顶端的提交。它必须创建一个新的提交，因为自它们的共同祖先以来，两个分支都发生了必须合并的更改。

      / - B - D (B1)
    - A      /
      \ --- C (B2)

此时D (B1)现在拥有来自两个分支(自身和B2)的两组更改。然而，第二个分支没有从B1开始的更改。如果你合并B1到B2的变化，这样它们就同步了，那么你可能会看到这样的东西(你可以强制git合并，但是使用——no-ff):

Expected:
      / - B - D (B1)
    - A      / \
      \ --- C - E (B2)
Reality:
      / - B - D (B1) (B2)
    - A      /
      \ --- C

即使B1有额外的提交，也会得到这个结果。只要B2中没有B1中没有的变化，两个分支就会合并。它做了一个快进，就像一个rebase (rebase也吃或线性化历史)，除了不像rebase只有一个分支有一个变更集，它不需要从一个分支应用一个变更集到另一个分支。

From:
      / - B - D - E (B1)
    - A      /
      \ --- C (B2)
To:
      / - B - D - E (B1) (B2)
    - A      /
      \ --- C

If you cease work on B1 then things are largely fine for preserving history in the long run. Only B1 (which might be master) will advance typically so the location of B2 in B2's history successfully represents the point that it was merged into B1. This is what git expects you to do, to branch B from A, then you can merge A into B as much as you like as changes accumulate, however when merging B back into A, it's not expected that you will work on B and further. If you carry on working on your branch after fast forward merging it back into the branch you were working on then your erasing B's previous history each time. You're really creating a new branch each time after fast forward commit to source then commit to branch. You end up with when you fast forward commit is lots of branches/merges that you can see in the history and structure but without the ability to determine what the name of that branch was or if what looks like two separate branches is really the same branch.

         0   1   2   3   4 (B1)
        /-\ /-\ /-\ /-\ /
    ----   -   -   -   -
        \-/ \-/ \-/ \-/ \
         5   6   7   8   9 (B2)

1 to 3 and 5 to 8 are structural branches that show up if you follow the history for either 4 or 9. There's no way in git to know which of this unnamed and unreferenced structural branches belong to with of the named and references branches as the end of the structure. You might assume from this drawing that 0 to 4 belongs to B1 and 4 to 9 belongs to B2 but apart from 4 and 9 was can't know which branch belongs to which branch, I've simply drawn it in a way that gives the illusion of that. 0 might belong to B2 and 5 might belong to B1. There are 16 different possibilies in this case of which named branch each of the structural branches could belong to. This is assuming that none of these structural branches came from a deleted branch or as a result of merging a branch into itself when pulling from master (the same branch name on two repos is infact two branches, a separate repository is like branching all branches).

There are a number of git strategies that work around this. You can force git merge to never fast forward and always create a merge branch. A horrible way to preserve branch history is with tags and/or branches (tags are really recommended) according to some convention of your choosing. I realy wouldn't recommend a dummy empty commit in the branch you're merging into. A very common convention is to not merge into an integration branch until you want to genuinely close your branch. This is a practice that people should attempt to adhere to as otherwise you're working around the point of having branches. However in the real world the ideal is not always practical meaning doing the right thing is not viable for every situation. If what you're doing on a branch is isolated that can work but otherwise you might be in a situation where when multiple developers are working one something they need to share their changes quickly (ideally you might really want to be working on one branch but not all situations suit that either and generally two people working on a branch is something you want to avoid).