[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: Darryl Melander <djmelan_at_sandia.gov>
Date: 2002-08-29 21:37:16 CEST

> Funny, I've been using "annotate" on ClearCase and CVS
> and never thought of the other meanings for the word
> "annotate".

I'll admit that I assumed "annotate" meant "add an annotation" until I was
shown how it worked.

> 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.

> it smacks of being 'pollitically correct' for no good
> reason.

My arguments above seem like a good reason to me...

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.



To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 29 22:16:24 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.