svn - Is it better to use a separate commit message for a git merge? -

I came from an SVN background, so I'm not sure what the typical git workflow looks like when you merge in SVN , You provide a committed message describing the merge. This is necessary because the merge-tracking of SVN has been historically poor.

I noticed that the default behavior of git is to automatically get the result of the merge, if it succeeds. This means that the log will not normally show a merge, so in history everything looks like it was developed in a branch. Is it better to show mergence as an additional commitment? I can think of several reasons why and why not, but I need some input from other users.

Unless you select - no-merges option git log , it will generally show a merger, which is given a brief auto-generated commentary details.

This is generally okay because git records the interesting characteristics of the original and a merge, its components are the branches.

Try using a git log - graph - line or a graphical history viewer and you (should!) Be convinced that the way the git records merge , That is very important and useful, which is longer than the long-running merge comment message.

The message was something 'magical' that was done in the resolution, it is easy to add manual intervention to this point in this way.