Junio C Hamano wrote: > "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Marco Costalba <mcostalba@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 6/12/07, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > >>> > (1) Are you emulating CVS-like "a file has an identity, and we >>> > follow its changes" model? How does it handle file split, >>> > merge, and code movement in general? >>> > >>> >>> It uses 'git rev-list HEAD -- <path>' to get the list of revisions >>> that modified a path, >> >> So apparently yes, qgit is emulating CVS. And yet much better things >> exist (git-blame). > > I would not use the word "better", as it depends on what you are > looking for. [...] > The way Marco describes is a perfectly valid way to satisfy > expectations of people migrating from CVS. It's more faithful > reproduction of CVS annotate behaviour. In a sense, git-blame > does too much, but that is exactly why these "accurate and > interesting" behaviours are optional. Perhaps the qgit annotating would find it's way in core git as git-annotate (which currently is alias to git-blame + some compatibility options), or as an option (--bottom-up) to git-blame? On the other hand side, blaming multiple files in parallel has sense I think only for graphical viewer, not for command line command. -- 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
