On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 05:15:30PM -0400, Marc Branchaud wrote: > On 2025-05-14 15:29, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > Having said that, I personally do not think of what "blame-tree" > > does as "blame" at all, and there should be a better name for that > > operation that does not use "blame" or "annotate". So a separate > > command that does not even hint it has any relationship with "blame" > > (because it doesn't; in my mental model, it does not do any "blame" > > at all---it just does "git log -1 path" for many paths in parallel) > > would be even more preferrable. Curious. Isn't it exactly the same what git-blame(1) does though? Taken the textual representation of a tree object, we figure out when each of the lines has last been changed. That to me sounds like exactly the same thing as git-blame(1), but just for trees instead of for blobs. Sure, git-blame-tree(1) goes further than that. But conceptually it is exactly the above thing, isn't it? > I'd also be happy if instead this came in as a new command without "blame" > in its name. > > How about [[consults thesaurus ...]] "git ascribe-tree"? > > Or maybe fold it into ls-tree, e.g. "git ls-tree --ascribe"? I think anything that needs a thesaurus to come up with probably isn't a good name for non-native speakers. I personally had to look up what this word means. Patrick
