RE: Suggestion to rename "blame" of the "git blame" command to something more neutral

[<rsbecker@nexbridge.com>]

On July 10, 2022 2:02 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 09:35:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@suse.de> writes:
>>
>> >> What do you think about this old patch of mine to add a 'git praise'?:
>> >> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20190401101246.21418-1-avarab@gmail.com
>> >> /
>> >
>> > Since you are asking .. I think it completely misses the point.
>> >
>> > I would consider it effective if users of git-praise(1) needed no
>> > knowledge of existence of git-blame(1).
>>
>> I think you are the one who completely misses the point of him sending
>> the URL (hint: what is the date of the patch?)
>>
>> "blame" is perfectly fine.  It is the tool we use to find a commit or
>> a series of commits to be blamed for whichever blocks of code in the
>> current codebase we are interested in.  Even if it is to find the
>> source of the buggy or ugly code in the current codebase (i.e. "verb
>> with negative connotation"), we are trying to put our fingers on the
>> commit to be blamed.
>
>If the word 'blame' is considered offensive by some pople a solution which
>basically adds an alias for the blame command without eliminating the
offensive
>word is insufficient.
>
>Sure, you may not find the word 'blame' offensive. I don't find it
offensive either. I
>don't find the word 'master' offensive either, and it was changed anyway.
>
>I don't want to decide whose offense is considered relevant and whose is
>disregarded.
>
>It's completely feasible to provide sound solution to eliminating the word
'blame'
>from the git source with the exception of some comaptibility alias, and the
linked
>patch is not it.

We already have git annotate as an effective alias. Why not use that if you
don't want git blame?
--R.