On 2025-05-15 09:29, Patrick Steinhardt wrote:
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 think the operation can be perceived in different ways. My only point
is that if we do conclude that it is a form of blaming then we fold it
into "git blame" instead of a new command.
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.
Yeah, that was a bit tongue-in-cheek, sorry.
(Honestly, "ascribe" would be really bad, precisely because it is a
synonym of "blame"...)
M.
