From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-180.mta0.migadu.com (out-180.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.180]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF2DA289E0E for ; Wed, 7 May 2025 14:22:19 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.180 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746627746; cv=none; b=i1imO8nnH1iJAlRgQRdi/b2XiTvXrMdRxXjSknFj3ESBpFA31pjlCUVKhp7aPcBWD9zVDyuQ1O+iTL/xXdN6K82N6sp3y4XRDJ4qktKWFSLO7KV1HqcQnHmreOQQlNWwRhAhaO7Vf0kesFmjnIK+wKWAfbhsTh0QRyy1kiWvveo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1746627746; c=relaxed/simple; bh=uD6gv2lxjfZGiJSmO330sKfOztG848dgSrKcJhtcy0o=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=KS/9x5zYmxyAAAc93MZl4GqFLd6OPUKnqEwBS/DjlaJKAhVSn4vV85/f8QWL32I8vnVc0qAVH2uqItaqbSixSoYNrNyJqMlZOhsf2PH+fS89MHVpyjI+Oc9tqqKjpGt/DzEGKB18jOGGYwLmSrgNcUl3T0BtqgSqjJ++0q+xEw8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=iotcl.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=iotcl.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iotcl.com header.i=@iotcl.com header.b=u5Ae4h3A; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.180 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=iotcl.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=iotcl.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=iotcl.com header.i=@iotcl.com header.b="u5Ae4h3A" X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=iotcl.com; s=key1; t=1746627737; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=5XvwT3p2YEkRfC/aZW9ppwLGcgurbl1ZV67ur6ANcpY=; b=u5Ae4h3AJk5pbt2psj2cgwqTYxqHTmuOukIBtmVdp29RvNFUZLbMcEWf9IkFHCA6eHPqLH BueHKomS8TxvNGXET2CAfaCFWhzNdWZbC9i0s18xAA2vYbtiPbG/7MQgSZ/fpJ8rbxH3nb 8+YTmpc/0Iqeh0SmTZCs2pHD3W9uoXA= From: Toon Claes To: Marc Branchaud , git@vger.kernel.org Cc: Jeff King , Taylor Blau , Derrick Stolee , =?utf-8?B?w4Z2YXIgQXJuZmrDtnLDsA==?= Bjarmason Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Introduce git-blame-tree(1) command In-Reply-To: <69a10929-0e44-4ce9-af91-048b8404c752@xiplink.com> References: <20250422-toon-new-blame-tree-v1-0-fdb51b8a394a@iotcl.com> <69a10929-0e44-4ce9-af91-048b8404c752@xiplink.com> Date: Wed, 07 May 2025 16:22:02 +0200 Message-ID: <87ecx0ijqt.fsf@iotcl.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT Marc Branchaud writes: > I feel the need to get some bike-shedding off my chest, though: Always welcome! > "blame-tree" would be a terrible name for this command. Do you feel this way because "blame" as a negative conotation? > I think that if Git ends up with two blame-like commands it will > merely solidify Git's reputation for obscurity. I think "blaming" is a well-concept in Git, and many people (familiar with Git) would understand in instant what `blame-tree` would do. > If this is really a form of blaming, then just make it an extension of > "git blame", like maybe "git blame --latest". I'm afraid that won't work very well, because the code is very much different. If naming is the only motivation to shoehorn this in, then I think it's better to rethink the name? > Otherwise, please come up with a new command name. "git latest"? "git > "latest-revs"? As long as it doesn't use the word "blame"... I've been thinking about this a lot more, but I failed to come up with a better name. > 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 ". > > To me that reads like an argument for folding this into "git blame". Forgive me, but I think folding into git-blame(1) will also solidify Git's reputation of obscurity. I think `blame-tree` is a fine name for this feature, but in the end I don't care too much about the exact name. If we end up naming it `git last-for-each`, `git annonate-files`, `git log-everyone`, or `git when-modified` ... It's all good for me. > [1] > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20110302164031.GA18233@sigill.intra.peff.net/ -- Toon