{"thread":{"id":"58118","subject":"Suggestion to rename \"blame\" of the \"git blame\" command to something more neutral","startedAt":"2022-07-07T15:35:57Z","lastAt":"2022-07-11T19:21:24Z","messageCount":12,"participants":["Jonas Aschenbrenner","Michal Suchánek","Junio C Hamano","Reto","Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason","rsbecker@nexbridge.com"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"458568","messageId":"CADS2hGpnkiPzivVDyN-PnGsQCTafqx68PxigXvBK1bv4O=p4kg@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"58118","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Suggestion to rename \"blame\" of the \"git blame\" command to something more neutral","fromName":"Jonas Aschenbrenner","fromEmail":"jonas.aschenbrenner@gmail.com","sentAt":"2022-07-07T15:35:41Z","receivedAt":"2022-07-07T15:35:57Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jonas.aschenbrenner@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Similar to the change of the default branch name from \"master\" to\n\"main\" to use a word which has less negative associations,\nI suggest to replace the word \"blame\" with something more neutral.\nMaybe \"annotate\". That word seems to already be used at some places\nfor this Git feature.\n\nBest regards\nJonas\n"},{"id":"458579","messageId":"20220707170032.GR17705@kitsune.suse.cz","threadId":"58118","inReplyTo":"CADS2hGpnkiPzivVDyN-PnGsQCTafqx68PxigXvBK1bv4O=p4kg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Suggestion to rename \"blame\" of the \"git blame\" command to something more neutral","fromName":"Michal Suchánek","fromEmail":"msuchanek@suse.de","sentAt":"2022-07-07T17:00:33Z","receivedAt":"2022-07-07T17:00:46Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msuchanek@suse.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/787652?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 05:35:41PM +0200, Jonas Aschenbrenner wrote:\n> Similar to the change of the default branch name from \"master\" to\n> \"main\" to use a word which has less negative associations,\n> I suggest to replace the word \"blame\" with something more neutral.\n> Maybe \"annotate\". That word seems to already be used at some places\n> for this Git feature.\n\nHave you seen git-annotate(1)\n\nBest regards\n\nMichal\n"},{"id":"458597","messageId":"CADS2hGoHzx4oGxZnx-DwstKLVM7w4afcYcgmPuAb=ex3WB78iA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"58118","inReplyTo":"20220707170032.GR17705@kitsune.suse.cz","subject":"Re: Suggestion to rename \"blame\" of the \"git blame\" command to something more neutral","fromName":"Jonas Aschenbrenner","fromEmail":"jonas.aschenbrenner@gmail.com","sentAt":"2022-07-07T19:12:47Z","receivedAt":"2022-07-07T19:13:03Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"jonas.aschenbrenner@gmail.com","avatar":null},"body":"Thanks. I wasn't aware of the fact that there is a \"git annotate\"\ncommand before.\nThe point regarding the word \"blame\" seems to remain.\nMaybe the \"git blame\" command can be removed in a future major version\nand a flag added to \"git annotate\" so that \"git annotate\" can return\nthe data in the format in which \"git blame\" currently returns it.\n\nOn Thu, Jul 7, 2022 at 7:00 PM Michal Suchánek wrote:\n>\n> On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 05:35:41PM +0200, Jonas Aschenbrenner wrote:\n> > Similar to the change of the default branch name from \"master\" to\n> > \"main\" to use a word which has less negative associations,\n> > I suggest to replace the word \"blame\" with something more neutral.\n> > Maybe \"annotate\". That word seems to already be used at some places\n> > for this Git feature.\n>\n> Have you seen git-annotate(1)\n>\n> Best regards\n>\n> Michal\n"},{"id":"458603","messageId":"xmqq8rp4zlcd.fsf@gitster.g","threadId":"58118","inReplyTo":"CADS2hGpnkiPzivVDyN-PnGsQCTafqx68PxigXvBK1bv4O=p4kg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Suggestion to rename \"blame\" of the \"git blame\" command to something more neutral","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2022-07-07T21:03:46Z","receivedAt":"2022-07-07T21:03:55Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Jonas Aschenbrenner writes:\n\n> Similar to the change of the default branch name from \"master\" to\n> \"main\" to use a word which has less negative associations,\n> I suggest to replace the word \"blame\" with something more neutral.\n> Maybe \"annotate\". That word seems to already be used at some places\n> for this Git feature.\n\nWe can help you to match the tool for your personal preference, e.g.\n\n $ git config --global alias.praise blame\n $ git praise COPYING\n\nChanging what has been known for one name for a long time for other\npeople takes a lot more than \"I do not like the word with negative\nconnotations\".\n"},{"id":"458708","messageId":"20220710130027.fsjd5m7s7swc4zxc@feather","threadId":"58118","inReplyTo":"CADS2hGpnkiPzivVDyN-PnGsQCTafqx68PxigXvBK1bv4O=p4kg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Suggestion to rename \"blame\" of the \"git blame\" command to something more neutral","fromName":"Reto","fromEmail":"reto@labrat.space","sentAt":"2022-07-10T13:00:27Z","receivedAt":"2022-07-10T13:00:36Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"reto@labrat.space","avatar":null},"body":"I like blame... Some humour when using tools is appreciated.\nAfter all, chances are that the idiot who wrote the code was past-you\nanyhow :P\n\nAlso pretty easy to remember, annotated doesn't exactly strike me as\nmemorable.\n"},{"id":"458710","messageId":"220710.86r12t82ea.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com","threadId":"58118","inReplyTo":"CADS2hGpnkiPzivVDyN-PnGsQCTafqx68PxigXvBK1bv4O=p4kg@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Suggestion to rename \"blame\" of the \"git blame\" command to something more neutral","fromName":"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason","fromEmail":"avarab@gmail.com","sentAt":"2022-07-10T14:31:18Z","receivedAt":"2022-07-10T14:32:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"avarab@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45301?v=4"},"body":"\nOn Thu, Jul 07 2022, Jonas Aschenbrenner wrote:\n\n> Similar to the change of the default branch name from \"master\" to\n> \"main\" to use a word which has less negative associations,\n> I suggest to replace the word \"blame\" with something more neutral.\n> Maybe \"annotate\". That word seems to already be used at some places\n> for this Git feature.\n\nWhat do you think about this old patch of mine to add a 'git praise'?:\nhttps://lore.kernel.org/git/20190401101246.21418-1-avarab@gmail.com/\n"},{"id":"458712","messageId":"20220710145502.GT17705@kitsune.suse.cz","threadId":"58118","inReplyTo":"220710.86r12t82ea.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Suggestion to rename \"blame\" of the \"git blame\" command to something more neutral","fromName":"Michal Suchánek","fromEmail":"msuchanek@suse.de","sentAt":"2022-07-10T14:55:02Z","receivedAt":"2022-07-10T14:55:07Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msuchanek@suse.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/787652?v=4"},"body":"Hello,\n\nOn Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 04:31:18PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:\n> \n> On Thu, Jul 07 2022, Jonas Aschenbrenner wrote:\n> \n> > Similar to the change of the default branch name from \"master\" to\n> > \"main\" to use a word which has less negative associations,\n> > I suggest to replace the word \"blame\" with something more neutral.\n> > Maybe \"annotate\". That word seems to already be used at some places\n> > for this Git feature.\n> \n> What do you think about this old patch of mine to add a 'git praise'?:\n> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20190401101246.21418-1-avarab@gmail.com/\n\nSince you are asking .. I think it completely misses the point.\n\nI would consider it effective if users of git-praise(1) needed no\nknowledge of existence of git-blame(1).\n\nThanks\n\nMichal\n"},{"id":"458719","messageId":"xmqq1qutrkm8.fsf@gitster.g","threadId":"58118","inReplyTo":"20220710145502.GT17705@kitsune.suse.cz","subject":"Re: Suggestion to rename \"blame\" of the \"git blame\" command to something more neutral","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2022-07-10T16:35:43Z","receivedAt":"2022-07-10T16:35:53Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Michal Suchánek writes:\n\n>> What do you think about this old patch of mine to add a 'git praise'?:\n>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20190401101246.21418-1-avarab@gmail.com/\n>\n> Since you are asking .. I think it completely misses the point.\n>\n> I would consider it effective if users of git-praise(1) needed no\n> knowledge of existence of git-blame(1).\n\nI think you are the one who completely misses the point of him\nsending the URL (hint: what is the date of the patch?)\n\n\"blame\" is perfectly fine. It is the tool we use to find a commit\nor a series of commits to be blamed for whichever blocks of code in\nthe current codebase we are interested in. Even if it is to find\nthe source of the buggy or ugly code in the current codebase\n(i.e. \"verb with negative connotation\"), we are trying to put our\nfingers on the commit to be blamed.\n\nAnd it is not personal---you may find who the \"author\" was as a side\neffect of finding that offending commit, but authors write both good\nand bad commits, and what we are trying to find is in which commit\nlies the origin of the current badness. There is no need to be\noverly politically correct by bending the verb we use.\n\nPlease do not waste our limited engineering resource on a nonsense\nlike this. A solution for whoever do not want to type b l a m e has\nalready been provided upthread and the discussion should end right\nthere.\n\nThanks.\n\n\n"},{"id":"458723","messageId":"20220710180131.GU17705@kitsune.suse.cz","threadId":"58118","inReplyTo":"xmqq1qutrkm8.fsf@gitster.g","subject":"Re: Suggestion to rename \"blame\" of the \"git blame\" command to something more neutral","fromName":"Michal Suchánek","fromEmail":"msuchanek@suse.de","sentAt":"2022-07-10T18:01:31Z","receivedAt":"2022-07-10T18:01:37Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"msuchanek@suse.de","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/787652?v=4"},"body":"On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 09:35:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n> Michal Suchánek writes:\n> \n> >> What do you think about this old patch of mine to add a 'git praise'?:\n> >> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20190401101246.21418-1-avarab@gmail.com/\n> >\n> > Since you are asking .. I think it completely misses the point.\n> >\n> > I would consider it effective if users of git-praise(1) needed no\n> > knowledge of existence of git-blame(1).\n> \n> I think you are the one who completely misses the point of him\n> sending the URL (hint: what is the date of the patch?)\n> \n> \"blame\" is perfectly fine. It is the tool we use to find a commit\n> or a series of commits to be blamed for whichever blocks of code in\n> the current codebase we are interested in. Even if it is to find\n> the source of the buggy or ugly code in the current codebase\n> (i.e. \"verb with negative connotation\"), we are trying to put our\n> fingers on the commit to be blamed.\n\nIf the word 'blame' is considered offensive by some pople a solution\nwhich basically adds an alias for the blame command without eliminating\nthe offensive word is insufficient.\n\nSure, you may not find the word 'blame' offensive. I don't find it\noffensive either. I don't find the word 'master' offensive either, and\nit was changed anyway.\n\nI don't want to decide whose offense is considered relevant and whose is\ndisregarded.\n\nIt's completely feasible to provide sound solution to eliminating the\nword 'blame' from the git source with the exception of some\ncomaptibility alias, and the linked patch is not it.\n\nBest regards\n\nMichal\n\n"},{"id":"458724","messageId":"004601d8948a$922e5fa0$b68b1ee0$@nexbridge.com","threadId":"58118","inReplyTo":"20220710180131.GU17705@kitsune.suse.cz","subject":"RE: Suggestion to rename \"blame\" of the \"git blame\" command to something more neutral","fromName":"","fromEmail":"rsbecker@nexbridge.com","sentAt":"2022-07-10T18:26:22Z","receivedAt":"2022-07-10T18:26:39Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"randall.becker@nexbridge.ca","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/28956764?v=4"},"body":"On July 10, 2022 2:02 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:\n>On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 09:35:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>> Michal Suchánek writes:\n>>\n>> >> What do you think about this old patch of mine to add a 'git praise'?:\n>> >> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20190401101246.21418-1-avarab@gmail.com\n>> >> /\n>> >\n>> > Since you are asking .. I think it completely misses the point.\n>> >\n>> > I would consider it effective if users of git-praise(1) needed no\n>> > knowledge of existence of git-blame(1).\n>>\n>> I think you are the one who completely misses the point of him sending\n>> the URL (hint: what is the date of the patch?)\n>>\n>> \"blame\" is perfectly fine. It is the tool we use to find a commit or\n>> a series of commits to be blamed for whichever blocks of code in the\n>> current codebase we are interested in. Even if it is to find the\n>> source of the buggy or ugly code in the current codebase (i.e. \"verb\n>> with negative connotation\"), we are trying to put our fingers on the\n>> commit to be blamed.\n>\n>If the word 'blame' is considered offensive by some pople a solution which\n>basically adds an alias for the blame command without eliminating the\noffensive\n>word is insufficient.\n>\n>Sure, you may not find the word 'blame' offensive. I don't find it\noffensive either. I\n>don't find the word 'master' offensive either, and it was changed anyway.\n>\n>I don't want to decide whose offense is considered relevant and whose is\n>disregarded.\n>\n>It's completely feasible to provide sound solution to eliminating the word\n'blame'\n>from the git source with the exception of some comaptibility alias, and the\nlinked\n>patch is not it.\n\nWe already have git annotate as an effective alias. Why not use that if you\ndon't want git blame?\n--R.\n\n"},{"id":"458776","messageId":"220711.86sfn77sd7.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com","threadId":"58118","inReplyTo":"xmqq1qutrkm8.fsf@gitster.g","subject":"Re: Suggestion to rename \"blame\" of the \"git blame\" command to something more neutral","fromName":"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason","fromEmail":"avarab@gmail.com","sentAt":"2022-07-11T11:47:06Z","receivedAt":"2022-07-11T12:20:58Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"avarab@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/45301?v=4"},"body":"\nOn Sun, Jul 10 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n\n> Michal Suchánek writes:\n>\n>>> What do you think about this old patch of mine to add a 'git praise'?:\n>>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20190401101246.21418-1-avarab@gmail.com/\n>>\n>> Since you are asking .. I think it completely misses the point.\n>>\n>> I would consider it effective if users of git-praise(1) needed no\n>> knowledge of existence of git-blame(1).\n>\n> I think you are the one who completely misses the point of him\n> sending the URL (hint: what is the date of the patch?)\n\nI wrote it as a joke, but that was in 2019, and I think at that time the\nidea that we needed to do anything about the \"master\" nomenclature was\nequally far-fetched, but here we are.\n\nWhile I wrote it as an in-joke, I think some version of it might be\nsomething we'd want to integrate, whether that's (optionally?)\nadvertising git-annotate over git-blame, adding a git-praise or whatever\nelse.\n\nClearly some users care enough about this particular thing to keep\nshowing up with some regularity to point it out.\n\nPersonally I think the \"git-blame\" argument has a lot more weight than\nthe \"master\" one. The latter seems to be the result of language zealotry\nextending to usage that really doesn't have anything meaningfully to do\nwith the underlying issue at play (i.e. a US-based political movement\nthat seems to have had its zenith in 2020).\n\nWhereas I'm pretty sure that \"blame\" really does mean \"blame\" in the bad\nsense of the word, but \"in a good way\".\n\nI.e. I tihnk it's part of a history of playful language use deriving\nfrom early hacker circles, *nix command nomanclature etc. The BSDs in\nparticular have a lot of that (e.g. \"daemon\" etc.).\n\nNow, I think making a fuzz about this sort of thing is a bit silly, but\non the other hand git's used in a lot of different environments.\n\nDepending on the proposed change adding a \"blame\" alias (or promoting an\nexisting one) might be a lot smaller of a change than everything around\n\"init.defaultBranch\", so *shrug*.\n\nIn any case, I think anyone interested in pushing this forward (and I'm\nnot) needs to come up with some patches to move it forward, or explain\nin some detail what is/isn't OK about some existing ones (e.g. my April\n1st, 2019 \"git-praise\" patch).\n\nI understand Michal's and Jonas's upthread suggestions as us doing a\ns/blame/praise/g or whatever on the codebase. For backwards\ncompatibility concerns that would be a non-starter.\n\nBut users \"having no knowledge of [the other command]\" can stop short of\nthat, and that seems like a good idea in any case. E.g. we have a\nlong-standing wart of \"git stage -h\" referring to itself as \"git-add\",\nand \"annotate\" has the same issue.\n\nThere's really no reason we shouldn't fix that, i.e. if we have an alias\nand a user uses it, we should at least refer back to it consistently\nwhen we talk about the command the user invoked.\n"},{"id":"458811","messageId":"xmqqwncjo3pv.fsf@gitster.g","threadId":"58118","inReplyTo":"220711.86sfn77sd7.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Suggestion to rename \"blame\" of the \"git blame\" command to something more neutral","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2022-07-11T19:21:16Z","receivedAt":"2022-07-11T19:21:24Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason writes:\n\n> On Sun, Jul 10 2022, Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>\n>> Michal Suchánek writes:\n>>\n>>>> What do you think about this old patch of mine to add a 'git praise'?:\n>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20190401101246.21418-1-avarab@gmail.com/\n>>>\n>>> Since you are asking .. I think it completely misses the point.\n>>>\n>>> I would consider it effective if users of git-praise(1) needed no\n>>> knowledge of existence of git-blame(1).\n>>\n>> I think you are the one who completely misses the point of him\n>> sending the URL (hint: what is the date of the patch?)\n>\n> I wrote it as a joke, but that was in 2019, and I think at that time the\n> idea that we needed to do anything about the \"master\" nomenclature was\n> equally far-fetched, but here we are.\n\nComparing master/main with blame/anything-else is apples and\noranges, though.\n\nThe switch of (not the feature to configure) the default was\npalatable only because it benefited even those who did not mind the\ncontinued use of the word 'master', those who found 'main' just as\nproblematic as 'master', or anybody in between, simply because the\nmajor hosting sites and existing projects were or have already\nmigrated. In such an external reality, using 'master' as the\nhard-coded default would have forced more people to configure when\nthey start their project, whether they liked or hated the word\n'master' [*1*].\n\n\"git blame\" is completely different. Nobody cares if you do not\nfind a \"blame\" offensive word [*2*], nobody should care if you typed\n\"git blame\", and nobody should dictate you to stop using \"git blame\"\nnor eradicating \"blame\" from our source.\n\nLet this thread just stop, please.\n\n\n[Footnotes]\n\n*1* Admittedly we helped the migration of these people by improving\nthe auto-detection in \"git clone\" of what the upstream uses, and\nadding the configurability to \"git init\", so we weren't impartial\nbystander who passibly adjusted to the prevailing wind, but we\nweren't the only one who were setting the policy and forcing other\nfolks to adopt it.\n\n*2* After all, if the tool finds an old mistake you made, blaming\nthe earlier breakage to you, why are you making a big fuss about it?\nYou already made a mistake in the commit \"git blame\" found; even if\n(figuratively) you are playing the \"I must always be right\" game,\nadmitting your past mistake does not make you even more wrong. It\nis what you did in the past, and you can simply acknowledge the fact\nand move on, with th easpiration that the next time you would be\nmore careful. The world would become a better place and the first\nstep in that journey is to admit your past mistakes and accept the\nblame.\n"}]}