From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Martin Langhoff (CatalystIT)" Subject: Re: perhaps time to remove git_blame from gitweb, and git-annotate? Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 18:37:26 +1300 Message-ID: <45273D16.7050205@catalyst.net.nz> References: <20061006175234.41182.qmail@web31810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johannes Schindelin , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org, Petr Baudis , Jakub Narebski , Ryan Anderson , Martyn Smith , Fredrik Kuivinen , Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Oct 07 07:38:20 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GW4sc-0001Nc-Gh for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 07 Oct 2006 07:37:49 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751761AbWJGFhn (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Oct 2006 01:37:43 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751762AbWJGFhn (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Oct 2006 01:37:43 -0400 Received: from godel.catalyst.net.nz ([202.78.240.40]:53191 "EHLO mail1.catalyst.net.nz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751761AbWJGFhm (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 Oct 2006 01:37:42 -0400 Received: from leibniz.catalyst.net.nz ([202.78.240.7] helo=[192.168.2.69]) by mail1.catalyst.net.nz with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.50) id 1GW4sI-0001Vf-FW; Sat, 07 Oct 2006 18:37:26 +1300 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050915 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: ltuikov@yahoo.com In-Reply-To: <20061006175234.41182.qmail@web31810.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Luben Tuikov wrote: >>>Do people have reason to favor annotate over blame? To keep >>>existing people's scripts working I think we should add a small >>>amount of code to blame.c to default to compatibility mode when >>>the command is called as git-annotate at least for a while, but >>>other than that I do not see much issue against scheduling for >>>annotate's removal. >> >>+1. Although I would leave git-annotate in git, if only to meet >>expectations of new git users. > > > I agree with Junio's assessment of the situation. +1 -- I need to test that the switch to git-blame for git-cvsserver works well for Eclipse end users. Will try and fit that next week somehow ;-) martin -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Martin @ Catalyst .Net .NZ Ltd, PO Box 11-053, Manners St, Wellington WEB: http://catalyst.net.nz/ PHYS: Level 2, 150-154 Willis St OFFICE: +64(4)916-7224 MOB: +64(21)364-017 Make things as simple as possible, but no simpler - Einstein -----------------------------------------------------------------------