[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: John P Cavanaugh <cavanaug_at_soco.agilent.com>
Date: 2002-08-30 07:12:09 CEST

On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:05:35PM -0500, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > * It's more descriptive. ("annotate" is counter-intuitive, really; it
> > sounds like a command to attach a note to a revision, or something.)
> Yeah, what he said.
> We're trying to preserve the best parts of CVS, but the choice of the
> word "annotate" is one of the worst. We will have it as a synonym,
> but it's such a bad name that we chose not to preserve that particular
> legacy (as far as the official name of the command goes).

I was gearing up to write my thoughts on why it should be "annotate"
and not "blame" until I read this post.

If it is available as a synonym so folks can use "svn annotate" from the
command line but its *real* name under the hood is "svn blame" (call it
foobarxxx as far as I am concerned). I just wanted it to be somewhat
transparent to CVS & Clearcase users.

--John Cavanaugh

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 30 08:15:58 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.