Hi, On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 6:16 PM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I considered making it a special mode of "git blame" when blame is fed a > directory instead of a file. But the implementations aren't shared at > all (nor do I think they need to be; blame-tree is _way_ simpler). And I git blame dir/file.c "Show what revision and author last modified each line of a file" git blame dir/ "Show what revision and author last modified each file" This makes sense to me (the user). I don't understand the implementation thing. I don't see a difference between those two commands. Even more, if I'm educated Unix user I might know directories are also files. > didn't want to steal that concept in case somebody can think of a more > content-level way of blaming a whole tree that makes sense (obviously > just showing the concatenation of the blames of each file is one way, > but I don't know how useful that would be). If we want to go that way, > we can always catch the special case in blame and just exec blame-tree. Still can be in git-blame command, no? > The initial set of interesting files we come up with is gotten by > looking at the tree of the first pending object after parsing the rev > options (defaulting to HEAD). Which sounds a little flaky to me, but > does what you want in practice. I'd be curious if somebody can come up > with a counterexample where the ability to manually specify the source > tree would be more useful. Same argument as for normal blame: I want to know who modified files at the state of commit X (if I understand the question correctly). -- Piotrek -- To unsubscribe from this list: 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