Re: annotate vs blame

On Thursday 29 August 2002 12:49, Dave Cridland wrote:
> 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 was confused about both "annotate" and "blame", more so because I knew that
"blame" was just the new name for "annotate". Until I saw how it worked, I
thought it was a way to attach a second (or third...) log message to a
revision, where I could write a message describing a problem I had with that
specific revision. Like, "This revision doesn't compile... thanks a lot John
Smith."

Some people have suggested "trace", and I think that makes the most sense to
me. Cmpilato said "trace" would be confused with "cvs -t subcommand", but
the cvs "trace" is just an option, not a subcommand. That difference should
clear up the confusion. Even if svn had a cvs-style -t option, it would
still be separate from a "trace" subcommand in my mind.

It would be pretty obvious:

  svn trace path/to/file

traces the file, which obviously (to me, anyway) means tracing the origins of
that file (and thus the origins of specific lines within that file).

  svn -t subcommand ...

traces the subcommand, which is pretty obvious that it's tracing the actual
execution of something.

-- 
Peter Davis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org