W dniu 19.01.2017 o 19:39, Linus Torvalds pisze: > On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:33 PM, Konstantin Khomoutov > <kostix+git@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Still, I welcome you to read the sort-of "reference" post by Linus >> Torvalds [1] in which he explains the reasoning behind this approach >> implemented in Git. > > It's worth noting that that discussion was from some _very_ early days > in git (one week into the whole thing), when none of those > visualization tools were actually implemented. > > Even now, ten years after the fact, plain git doesn't actually do what > I outlined. Yes, "git blame -Cw" works fairly well, and is in general > better than the traditional per-file "annotate". And yes, "git log > --follow" does another (small) part of the outlined thing, but is > really not very powerful. It is really a pity that "git log --follow" is so limited; it's development stopped at early 'good enough' implementation. For example "git log --follow gitweb/gitweb.perl" would not show the whole history of a file (which was once independent project), and "git log --follow" doesn't work for directories or multiple files. > > Some tools on top of git do more, but I think in general this is an > area that could easily be improved upon. For example, the whole > iterative and interactive drilling down in history of a particular > file is very inconvenient to do with "git blame" (you find a commit > that change the area in some way that you don't find interesting, so > then you have to restart git blame with the parent of that > unintersting commit). > > You can do it in tig, but I suspect a more graphical tool might be better. Well, we do have "git gui blame". [...] -- Jakub Narębski