From: Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2025 13:26:59 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Introduce git-blame-tree(1) command
Message-ID: <69a10929-0e44-4ce9-af91-048b8404c752@xiplink.com>
In-Reply-To: <20250422-toon-new-blame-tree-v1-0-fdb51b8a394a@iotcl.com>


On 2025-04-22 13:46, Toon Claes wrote:
> This is another attempt to upstream the git-blame-tree(1) subcommand.
> After the previous attempt[1] the people of GitHub shared their version
> of the subcommand, and this version integrates those changes.

This functionality is awesome -- thanks for pushing this forwards.

I feel the need to get some bike-shedding off my chest, though: 
"blame-tree" would be a terrible name for this command.  I think that if 
Git ends up with two blame-like commands it will merely solidify Git's 
reputation for obscurity.

If this is really a form of blaming, then just make it an extension of 
"git blame", like maybe "git blame --latest".

Otherwise, please come up with a new command name.  "git latest"?  "git 
"latest-revs"?  As long as it doesn't use the word "blame"...

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 <path> <rev opts>".

To me that reads like an argument for folding this into "git blame".

		M.

[1] 
https://lore.kernel.org/git/20110302164031.GA18233@sigill.intra.peff.net/