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

[Mikhael Goikhman]

On 13 Dec 2004 08:57:57 -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
> 
> John S. Yates, Jr. wrote:
> 
> >"Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden> wrote in message
> >
> >>>>>>>"Adrian" == Adrian Irving-Beer <address@hidden> writes:
> >>>>>>>
> >>That may be.  "Annotate" doesn't say at all what the command does,
> >>though, except in a very generic way.  I'm probably just mentally
> >>blocked, but at the moment I can't come up with an idiom that has the
> >>same semantics as "blame" without the connotations: "finger",
> >>"arrest", "accuse", ... ah, got it: "credit", or "colophon" ;-).
> >
> >Ascribe?
> 
> After reading the SVN thread, there are a few that were interesting
> etiology   The study of how things come about, (like how did a word come 
> to usage). Pretty much exactly what we are doing, but not very obvious
> linehistory   again, rather close to what we are doing, "can be 
> shortened to lh" for shorter typing
> praise      going the opposite way from blame
> commentary   Doesn't quite fit for me
> whodunit   Another silly one, but better than blame
> 
> My personal favorites are linehistory, and whodunit

Some of the names suggested above slightly describe the discussed command
(linehistory, colophon, commentary), but may be confused with a different
functionality, and other names simply do not describe the command.
For some reason folks suppose the purpose of the command is to show the
creator of each line, however the real purpose is to show the [last]
revision description, i.e. fully qualified name, date, creator, summary.
The creator may be (and is often) constant among revision descriptions.

"linedesc" would be more accurate. However, "annotate" sounds even better
to me, and is familar to cvs users.

Regards,
Mikhael.