Currently commits that are identical (including same history) in more than one major branch are kept as one single commit. Should they be forced to be split apart if after the split point for the branches?
What are the practical implications within the git system of the two options?
Current:
Alternative:
Split the commits common to both branches after the split. ie create commits C3A and C3B from C3 and C6A and C6B from C6 giving the graph:
Interesting. I didn't notice this during my own imports, then again I imported the larger part of the older history from the SVN version. What would be sort of interesting is why the branch-creation went in this haphazard way in the past?
In any case, the following observations can be made: a. Since the original branch creation in CVS was rather chaotic, it seems only correct to preserve this chaotic process as much as possible. b. Since git doesn't care if you do it one way or the other, you might as well pick the more correct one. c. For all practical operations on history, it is irrelevant which presentation you pick.
So, all things considered, I'd say preserve history the way it happened (which would be the "current", instead of the "alternative" method).