Re: [PATCH] annotate: Support annotation of files on other revisions.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Shawn Pearce wrote:
Ryan Anderson <ryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A Large Angry SCM wrote:

Ryan Anderson wrote:
...

For annotate, the syntax I was using was:
   git annotate Makefile headname

I'm not married to it, so please, send a patch to change it if you want
(Please fix up the test case I'm sending in this patch, as well.)

Wouldn't
   git annotate <headname> <filename(s?)>
be more consistent with other git commands?

Yes, but <headname> (really, a commitish) needs to be optional.

I should probably switch to:
   git annotate [-c|--commit <committish>] <filename>
but that's partly why I'm asking for feedback.

That works.

Or maybe:
	git-annotate [<committish> --] <filename(s?)>
or:
	git-annotate [<committish>] -- <filename(s?)>


Yes but doesn't git-diff accept:

	git-diff Makefile
	git-diff HEAD Makefile

?  (Which is rather ugly as what if you have a tracked file actually
called HEAD and you want the first form when the commit-ish is
omitted.)  So accepting an optional commit-ish before the filename
would be in line with what git-diff accepts today.

But maybe breaking convention from git-diff now is a good thing,
with a future change to cleanup git-diff.


Looking at the documentation, it looks like all of the commands that take paths do so as the last arguments. With any commit/tree arguments being, either, required or flagged.

Is there any reason that git-{annotate,blame} can't take more than one filename, ever?
-
: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]