Aaron Bentley wrote: > Linus Torvalds wrote: >> So yes, "git blame" is a _hell_ of a lot more powerful than anybody elses >> "annotate", as far as I know. I literally suspect that nobody else comes >> even close. Well without the content based detection of contents copying and moving which git-blame wouldn't work as well as it work now. > I notice that blame has an option to limit the annotation to recent > history. I can only assume that is for performance reasons. bzr > annotate doesn't need a feature like that, because annotations are > explicit in bzr's storage format. But you don't have content movement tracking. > > I expect that even if we were to > extend annotate to track content across files, it would still be so fast > that we wouldn't need it. I think not. The first example: $ time git blame -C revision.c >/dev/null real 0m7.577s user 0m7.248s sys 0m0.020s while without content copying and moving detection we have $ time git blame revision.c >/dev/null real 0m2.108s user 0m2.044s sys 0m0.024s (on 2000 BogoMIPS CPU). -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git - 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