[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: Noel Yap <yap_noel_at_yahoo.com>
Date: 2002-08-30 04:07:15 CEST

--- Sander Striker <striker@apache.org> wrote:
> First off I'm close -0 (leaning towards -1) on
> "annotate"
> being used at all (even as an alias). To annotate
> something
> means to attach some comment/remarks to something in
> my mind.
> I bet newcomers to version control systems would
> have the same.
> That CVS or ClearCase use this term is wrong(tm) ;)

Yeah, I'm getting there, too. I'd even sacrifice the
CVS transitioning for an "annotate" that really does
annotate like you say below.

> "blame" is good IMO, since you can clearly find out
> who to
> blame for a change. "who" would be better since it
> doesn't
> have a negative (or positive) tone.

I prefer "who" over blame. OTOH, it doesn't fully
describe the functionality. IMHO, "etiology" and
"analyze" do a much better job of this.

> I would very much like to see if we can actually
> implement
> a true "annotate" subcommand later in the game,
> which does
> what it means ;)

I'm starting to feel the same.


Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 30 04:07:47 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.