Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: release goals for Bazaar 1.1

[Mikhael Goikhman]

On 05 Feb 2005 13:38:39 +0900, Miles Bader wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 02:40:50 +0000, Mikhael Goikhman <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I don't see how "blame" or "praise" even hint about what the command
> > does, but "blame" is especially bad, since it encourages the "moron"
> > project practice you describe.
> 
> I'm not sure how you could miss it -- blame or praise _directly_
> reflect what the command does (give the person/changeset responsible
> for each line of  the source).

Maybe it is because I never want to know _who_ wrote the code when I run
"cvs annotate" (I know the people working on this file or this function),
but _why_ and _when_ they wrote this code. [cvs misses --summary option.]

It is very possible that my use cases are different from yours. Are they?

> That people actually are disturbed by "blame" seems vaguely absurd

It is not about disturbing, it is about the intuitive name describing the
command. For instance, I still don't know what does "spork" mean that you
defended previously. It may have something to do with the fact that my
non-technical English is on pretty much low level (never needed to speak
in this language).

At least I can find "blame" in my dictionary, as opposed to "spork". ;)

Regards,
Mikhael.