[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: Brandon Ehle <azverkan_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 2002-08-29 23:08:08 CEST

Dave Cridland wrote:

>On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 18:17, Greg Hudson wrote:
>> * It's more descriptive. ("annotate" is counter-intuitive, really; it
>> sounds like a command to attach a note to a revision, or something.)
>Indeed, that's what I thought it was. The use of "svn blame" didn't help
>me in that misconception, since I assumed you were simply annotating to
>attach blame.
>I'd have called it "trace", really, but that's probably (as usual) just
I'm +1 for "svn whodunit"

On a serious note, I also feel that "svn blame" is just as
non-descriptive as "svn annotate". The database isn't really blaming
someone. "history" might be the best word, but that's a CVS word that
meant something completely different.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 29 23:14:35 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.