On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 4:37 PM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:21:19PM +0000, Michael Platings wrote: > > > > I work on a project that needs a major reformatting, and one thing > > > delaying me was the lack of an ability to ignore commits during blame. > > > > I think we understand each other well then - I'm working on a plan to > > change the variable naming rule in LLVM, and naturally other > > developers aren't keen on making git blame less useful. > > This is sort of a tangent to the thread, but have you looked into tools > that provide an interactive "re-blame from the parent" operation? I use > tig for this. Quite often my blame turns up on some boring line > (whitespace fixing, minor tweaking of a function interface, etc), and > then I want to keep digging on the "same" line, as counted by line count > (but it's OK if it's off by one or two lines, since I'm looking at a > blame of the whole file). > +1 for the usefulness of this approach. It really helps figure things out in a way that doesn't require me to track all "uninteresting" commits, and also works when I *am* trying to find that uninteresting commit too. > Obviously this isn't as automated as saying "ignore commit X, it's just > variable renaming". But it also eliminates the need to a priori figure > out all such X that affect the lines you care about. You get an answer, > your human mind says "nope, that's not interesting", and you press a > button to dig further. > > I think there's room for both solutions to co-exist, but just suggesting > you to try out the one that's already been implemented if you haven't. ;) > > -Peff That's also my sentiment. Thanks, Jake
