Hello.
On Thu 2002-08-29 at 17:08:08 -0400, Brandon Ehle wrote:
[...]
> >I'd have called it "trace", really, but that's probably (as usual) just
> >me.
[...]
> 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.
How about "svn track"? Not being a native speaker, I might be way off,
but it came as next best alternative to me, considering "trace".
That said, just wanted to throw in my 2 (euro-)cents: "blame" doesn't
tell me much more what the command is going to do than "annotate",
IMHO.
Although I just learned that many people use it for finding out "who",
I seldomly use it that way. Most times I am more interested in "when"
and not "who", first running "cvs ann" with different revisions, until
I find out when the change in question has been made, and then "cvs
diff/log" to find out more of the context of the change.
This is not so much in the context of something breaking, but when I
try to understand why something is done the way it is done. For
example, if it seems that some lines don't really belong together, one
can find out if they were changed together or if the inconsistency has
been introduced by a later change.
Regards,
Benjamin.
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Thu Aug 29 23:38:54 2002