On 2025-04-22 13:46, Toon Claes wrote:
This is another attempt to upstream the git-blame-tree(1) subcommand.
After the previous attempt[1] the people of GitHub shared their version
of the subcommand, and this version integrates those changes.
This functionality is awesome -- thanks for pushing this forwards.
I feel the need to get some bike-shedding off my chest, though:
"blame-tree" would be a terrible name for this command. I think that if
Git ends up with two blame-like commands it will merely solidify Git's
reputation for obscurity.
If this is really a form of blaming, then just make it an extension of
"git blame", like maybe "git blame --latest".
Otherwise, please come up with a new command name. "git latest"? "git
"latest-revs"? As long as it doesn't use the word "blame"...
FYI, here's Peff's original explanation[1] of how he came up with the name:
> I wasn't sure at first what to call it or what the calling conventions
> should be. The initial thought was to make it part of "ls-tree". But
> that feels wrong, as ls-tree otherwise never cares about traversal.
> The combination of traversal and diff made me think of blame, and
> indeed, I think this is really just about blaming a whole tree at the
> file-level, rather than at the content-level. Thus I called it blame-
> tree, and I used the same calling conventions as blame:
> "git blame-tree <path> <rev opts>".
To me that reads like an argument for folding this into "git blame".
M.
[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/git/20110302164031.GA18233@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
