Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Sun, 28 Jan 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote: > ... >> I was hoping to take a look at Shawn's git-gui and also perhaps >> looking into adding blame --incremental support to gitk myself >> when I have time, but unfortunately my day-job deadline is >> spilling into this weekend. > > I think the nice thing about the new "git-blame --incremental" is that it > allows people who really don't know (or care) anything at all about git > internals to do the viewer. So you shouldn't need to care. > > So I don't think you should do it, we should encourage others (who may not > be comfy with writing hard-core C that touches subtle internal git issues) > to just do it. Good points. I won't, although I've added fixed-up version of Jeff's as an example under contrib/ -- I hope Jeff does not mind. > ... > I think it would be nice if the *dirty* lines would actually get blamed to > a fake commit (SHA-1 "00000000..") that is the "current working tree. > ... > No? Yeah. That sounds sensible. - 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