If I were less lazy, I'd probably reference an issue number, but I usually give my name and a description of the general task. In looking at current branches:
I got a little too generic at one point, reused a branch name and halted the server's code from updating (the person reporting the stall didn't know git fetch --prune … my office is a relatively recent git convert. don't judge… ).
git fetch --prune
I use a version of Ben's:
Useful side effect: keeps little reminders for myself come time for annual self evaluation.
start a new branch from there?
why your name is relevant to the feature? does someone who takes it over (in case you get sick or you take 1y off time) needs to rename it? Just my curiosity... Thanks
This is pretty much what I do, our agile tracking software at work (Clubhouse) gives you tags based on the issue number, which automatically connects the ticket to the branch. You end up with branches that look like this:
They have a nice copy button, which makes it easy to check out new branches.
If I am working on a non-work project, I use:
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.