Re: [RFC] git blame-tree

From: Piotr Krukowiecki <piotr.krukowiecki@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 2, 2011, 17:51 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTim4fKO=Lb0dY0DzRu1QqC8NHPoF8iveYQ2E6OBH@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110302171653.GA18957@sigill.intra.peff.net>

Hi,

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:

> I considered making it a special mode of "git blame" when blame is fed a
> directory instead of a file. But the implementations aren't shared at
> all (nor do I think they need to be; blame-tree is _way_ simpler). And I

git blame dir/file.c
  "Show what revision and author last modified each line of a file"

git blame dir/
  "Show what revision and author last modified each file"

This makes sense to me (the user). I don't understand the implementation thing. I don't see a difference between those two commands. Even more, if I'm educated Unix user I might know directories are also files.

Show 5 quoted lines

> didn't want to steal that concept in case somebody can think of a more
> content-level way of blaming a whole tree that makes sense (obviously
> just showing the concatenation of the blames of each file is one way,
> but I don't know how useful that would be). If we want to go that way,
> we can always catch the special case in blame and just exec blame-tree.

Still can be in git-blame command, no?

Show 6 quoted lines

> The initial set of interesting files we come up with is gotten by
> looking at the tree of the first pending object after parsing the rev
> options (defaulting to HEAD). Which sounds a little flaky to me, but
> does what you want in practice. I'd be curious if somebody can come up
> with a counterexample where the ability to manually specify the source
> tree would be more useful.

Same argument as for normal blame: I want to know who modified files at the state of commit X (if I understand the question correctly).

-- 
Piotrek