Git branches & commits history after merge

Question

I\'m working on a project (alone) and for every feature I develop I create a new branch, work on this feature, then merge it to master. So normally I never work on two different

Answer 1

You can found addition criticism to the -no-ff option in "Understanding the Git Workflow", mainly because it would break git blame.
More at "fast forward when using pull and no-ff when pull".

As explained in "Why does git use fast-forward merging by default?", unless you are talking about a really long-lived branch, a fast-forward merge is preferable.

Answer 2

That is normal Git behaviour. You are doing what is called a "fast-forward" merge, because your branch is strictly ahead of the master branch.

If you really want to preserve branch history (although I'd recommend you don't bother) then you can use git merge --no-ff to force it to create a merge commit even when it can do a fast-forward update.