Ryan Anderson <ryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2006 at 03:48:25PM -0500, Shawn Pearce wrote: >> >> But your definately right; once the blame/annotate war settles out >> GIT will have pretty much everything one might need - except a good >> distributed bug/issue tracking type system. :-) > > Junio, where do we stand on this? As far as I am concerned, you two are still on the starting line. Admittably, Fredrik took a bit more time to come to there while you were still waiting there. But since then I do not think either of you moved much. I have not seen anybody to come up with a test history, compare what the two algorithms do on that test history, and argue why one is more correct than the other. I've been too busy to start that myself, and honestly speaking I am not that interested in the details myself in that area. To me, the only reason annotate/blame exist in git is to support the cvs server emulation, so obviously I want at least _one_ of them working correctly to be usable by git-cvsserver, but beyond that, which one to pick is not really what I am interested in. When I am working in a git repository, I'd rather use combination of whatchanged and pickaxe not annotate/blame myself anyway. I suspect there are people a lot more interested in having a better annotate/blame, and I've been sort-of hoping somebody would really start that blame/annotate war. - : 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