Theodore Tso wrote: > On Sun, Feb 04, 2007 at 11:12:34AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote: >> On Sun, 4 Feb 2007, Jeff King wrote: >>> >>> Just a thought, but it might be useful to blame the contents of an >>> arbitrary file (but starting the history at a given pathname). Something >>> like "git blame --contents /tmp/foo.c file.c", with contents defaulting >>> to "file.c". There's much discussion of editor interfaces, and this >>> leaves the possibility of git-blaming the contents of the editor buffer >>> (after writing it out to a temp file) without having to save changes to >>> the working tree file. >> >> I agree, that probably would make most sense. If we do this at all. On the >> other hand, I suspect that most editors would probably want to pipe the >> contents to the program, not write it to a temp-file. > > ... and use it with --incremental, as well. In emacs you can have the > annotation take place as it is being written out relatively easily, by > arranging to have a callback function get called each time more > information is handed back to emacs via a pipe. So perhaps instead of "git blame --contents /tmp/foo.c file.c" we should have "cat /tmp/foo.c | git blame --stdin file.c", hmmm? Editor would then pipe current contents of the buffer to "git blame --stdin --incremental file.c" (where file.c is the name in tree/in HEAD). -- 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