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

> On Wed, May 14, 2025 at 05:15:30PM -0400, Marc Branchaud wrote:
>> On 2025-05-14 15:29, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Having said that, I personally do not think of what "blame-tree"
>>> does as "blame" at all, and there should be a better name for that
>>> operation that does not use "blame" or "annotate".  So a separate
>>> command that does not even hint it has any relationship with "blame"
>>> (because it doesn't; in my mental model, it does not do any "blame"
>>> at all---it just does "git log -1 path" for many paths in parallel)
>>> would be even more preferrable.
> 
> Curious. Isn't it exactly the same what git-blame(1) does though? Taken
> the textual representation of a tree object, we figure out when each of
> the lines has last been changed. That to me sounds like exactly the same
> thing as git-blame(1), but just for trees instead of for blobs.
> 
> Sure, git-blame-tree(1) goes further than that. But conceptually it is
> exactly the above thing, isn't it?

>> I'd also be happy if instead this came in as a new command without "blame"
>> in its name.
>>
>> How about [[consults thesaurus ...]] "git ascribe-tree"?
>>
>> Or maybe fold it into ls-tree, e.g. "git ls-tree --ascribe"?
> 
> I think anything that needs a thesaurus to come up with probably isn't a
> good name for non-native speakers. I personally had to look up what this
> word means.