On Sun, Jul 10, 2022 at 09:35:43AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Michal Suchánek <msuchanek@xxxxxxx> writes: > > >> What do you think about this old patch of mine to add a 'git praise'?: > >> https://lore.kernel.org/git/20190401101246.21418-1-avarab@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > > Since you are asking .. I think it completely misses the point. > > > > I would consider it effective if users of git-praise(1) needed no > > knowledge of existence of git-blame(1). > > I think you are the one who completely misses the point of him > sending the URL (hint: what is the date of the patch?) > > "blame" is perfectly fine. It is the tool we use to find a commit > or a series of commits to be blamed for whichever blocks of code in > the current codebase we are interested in. Even if it is to find > the source of the buggy or ugly code in the current codebase > (i.e. "verb with negative connotation"), we are trying to put our > fingers on the commit to be blamed. If the word 'blame' is considered offensive by some pople a solution which basically adds an alias for the blame command without eliminating the offensive word is insufficient. Sure, you may not find the word 'blame' offensive. I don't find it offensive either. I don't find the word 'master' offensive either, and it was changed anyway. I don't want to decide whose offense is considered relevant and whose is disregarded. It's completely feasible to provide sound solution to eliminating the word 'blame' from the git source with the exception of some comaptibility alias, and the linked patch is not it. Best regards Michal
