I like "svn track."
-David Waite
Benjamin Pflugmann wrote:
>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.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 30 03:12:09 2002