[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: Nuutti Kotivuori <naked_at_iki.fi>
Date: 2002-08-30 09:32:28 CEST

Noel Yap wrote:
> --- Sander Striker <striker@apache.org> wrote:
>> "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.

More stew - 'svn linehistory'. It's not too nice or short, it carries
a reference to "lines" even though some day we are not line-based at
all, and so on. But it does carry a significant advantage over
everything else I've seen.

It gives me the idea that I _will_ indeed see who changed what line
and when - none of the other choices have yet done that.

Maybe this could be worked on a bit more?

-- Naked

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Aug 30 09:38:14 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.