Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] Introduce git-blame-tree(1) command

From: Marc Branchaud <marcnarc@xiplink.com>
Date: May 8, 2025, 13:26 UTC
Message-ID: <b162707d-0da3-4ea7-94da-5546119012c4@xiplink.com>
In-Reply-To: <9a0c98d1-4a77-4f2e-9aa9-bbab11b3e44d@app.fastmail.com>

On 2025-05-07 16:49, Kristoffer Haugsbakk wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> On Wed, May 7, 2025, at 22:23, Marc Branchaud wrote:
>> I agree that blaming is a well-(known) concept.  I also agree that most
>> users would understand what blame-tree would do, *once they find it*.
>>
>> But I think that's beside the point I'm trying to make.  Git is
>> notorious for making users learn countless commands, and having two
>> slightly-different commands for blaming is just going to make that worse.
> 
> Use a Git user I don’t see the problem.  `git --list-cmds=builtins`
> lists 144 commands.  Six of them are `-tree` commands.

None of the -tree commands are porcelain meant for regular use, and only merge-tree is "ancillary". The rest are all plumbing. These are hardly the commands normal users will use. I've been using and scripting Git for a great many years, and I think I've maybe used read-tree a handful of times.

(I see that --list-cmds is experimental and only documented deep within "git help git". You seem to be a very advanced Git user!)

> It’s not been my understanding that people stumble upon niche commands
> that easily.

Yes, I agree.  That seems to support the point I've been trying to make...

Show 7 quoted lines

> Most questions I’ve seen about git-commit-tree(1) (one of
> the `-tree` commands that seems to come up from time to time) seem to
> come from a point of idle curiosity.  That’s questions that bring it up
> (i.e. potential user confusion).
> 
> (The first impression I got of `-tree` commands was that they were less
> user-friendly commands for hardcore users.)

Of course they're less user-friendly: They're not porcelain.

> That’s just my perspective.  Do you have a case in mind where such a new
> command could lead to user confusion?

Only decades of experience writing and using software. Bloating Git's command set should only be done after serious consideration of alternatives.

If I were not subscribed to this list, and Git went ahead with "blame-tree", I would most likely never learn about it. Since I do know about "blame", if the feature were part of that command then I have a good chance of discovering it the next time I read blame's documentation.

M.