[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: annotate vs blame

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_newton.ch.collab.net>
Date: 2002-08-29 20:05:35 CEST

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> * It's more descriptive. ("annotate" is counter-intuitive, really; it
> sounds like a command to attach a note to a revision, or something.)

Yeah, what he said.

We're trying to preserve the best parts of CVS, but the choice of the
word "annotate" is one of the worst. We will have it as a synonym,
but it's such a bad name that we chose not to preserve that particular
legacy (as far as the official name of the command goes).

Many CVS users who first hear of "cvs annotate" assume that the
command name is a transitive verb, and that they're somehow annotating
the file -- adding another log message, or attaching text properties
to each line in the repository, or something like that. It's totally
counterintuitive, since you're not annotating the file, but rather
viewing automatically generated annotations :-).
> * It's what large segments of the CVS community call it in
> conversation.

Can confirm that :-).

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 29 20:26:31 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.