John Keeping <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Yes, it's marking it as a boundary but I'm not convinced that's correct. > Compare these two cases: > > $ git blame Makefile | head -5 > 7a3fc144 (John Keeping 2013-12-26 17:37:53 +0000 1) REL_VERSION = v0.2 > 5c9829f9 (John Keeping 2013-07-29 17:03:26 +0100 2) > 5c9829f9 (John Keeping 2013-07-29 17:03:26 +0100 3) # The default target is... > ^f7fae99 (John Keeping 2013-03-24 17:14:40 +0000 4) all:: > ^f7fae99 (John Keeping 2013-03-24 17:14:40 +0000 5) > > $ git blame ^5c9829f9 Makefile | head -5 > 7a3fc144 (John Keeping 2013-12-26 17:37:53 +0000 1) REL_VERSION = v0.2 > ^5c9829f (John Keeping 2013-07-29 17:03:26 +0100 2) > ^5c9829f (John Keeping 2013-07-29 17:03:26 +0100 3) # The default target is... > ^5c9829f (John Keeping 2013-07-29 17:03:26 +0100 4) all:: > ^5c9829f (John Keeping 2013-07-29 17:03:26 +0100 5) > > > While it might be useful to mark the initial commit, the current output > seems to mean that lines 4 and 5 existed before the repository was > created. If you consider blame's output to mean "introduced by commit" > then those lines should simply blame to the initial commit. You may be onto something, but I am not sure. Let me, as you told me to, compare these two outputs. The first says "At f7fae99, these lines were already there, and we are not showing anything before that state." The second says exactly the same thing but with f7fae99 replaced with 5c9829f. It is debatable if a root commit is *that* special to be shown differently from an in-between commit that introduced a change, and for consistency, I tend to agree with you that it may be better if roots weren't marked with the "^" prefix. -- 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