--- Darryl Melander <djmelan@sandia.gov> wrote:
> > Like I said before, IMHO, blame is
> counter-productive
> > due to its negative connotations.
> >
> > Does anyone else feel either way about the name
> for
> > this functionality?
>
> I do. For one thing, finding out *when* a section
> of code was modified is
> just as common as checking *who* modified the code,
> at least in my use of
> the functionality. I also use it to figure out what
> else was committed at
> the same time as a given chunk of code. Even with
> atomic commits, you'll
> need to use annotate/blame to find out the revision
> number at which the
> lines were introduced. I have a problem with
> "blame" because it only
> implies *who*; it has no connotation of *when* or
> *with what*. Calling it
> blame may reduce how often it is used for these very
> useful tasks.
This is also a very good point and one of my common
uses for annotate.
> The difficulty lies in finding a suitable
> alternative. I like "attribute"
> as a verb, but everyone will think of it as the noun
> and get confused.
> Maybe "trace" would work, but that word has a
> million meanings as well.
It seems to me (but I'm usually in the minority in
these things) that what annotate/blame is doing is
giving a very detailed log of the element. Would
anyone be opposed to making this functionality an
option to "log"? OTOH, this would break simple CVS
transitioning unless there's still an "annotate"
alias.
Noel
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes
http://finance.yahoo.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 29 23:28:31 2002