Re: More precise tag following

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Jan 27, 2007, 12:58 UTC
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0701271352170.22628@wbgn013.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20070127080126.GC9966@spearce.org>

Hi,

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007, Shawn O. Pearce wrote:

> I've been having a lot of discussion on #git with Simon 'corecode' 
> Schubert and Chris Lee about how poorly git-blame performs compared to 
> its counterpart in Subversion.

Well, I don't run git-blame too often, and then it is mostly confined to a certain file / lines combo. So git-blame is fast enough for me.

It is slower than Subversion's counterpart, just because SVN's blame sucks. You cannot find out the _relevant_ information easily, i.e. once you merged something, the _merge_ gets attributed for the change (at least the last time I tried it).

So, don't blame blame for being useful in git.

Of course, you could introduce a cache, but then, I don't run blame _that_ often.

Besides, we already introduced an orthogonal historisation by reflogs, and your method would not cope gracefully with that, would it?

Ciao, Dscho