Marcus Comstedt (ACROSS) (Hail Ilpalazzo!) @ Pike (-) developers forum wrote:
I also prefer the second variant. Having a "virtual" branch after the split is just confusing, especially if it can be checked out. If we instantiate "A", "B" and "A and B" as e.g. "7.4", "7.5" and "7.3", then no commits should exist on the "7.3" branch after the split.
The way this would look in git is that you would just have 7.4, 7.5 and 7.3. There would not be a way of checking out the virtual branch, and there would not exist commits on the 7.3 branch after the split (i.e. checking out 7.3 would just give the snapshot it which the split occurred). It's just a matter of where you hang the labels/branches. The virtual branch is never seen, except when you view that spot in a graph visualiser.