Received: from spf5.us4.outblaze.com (spf5.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.27]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.13.1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j157Gl0e009151 for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2005 07:16:48 GMT Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [199.232.76.165]) by spf5.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85DC776E8B for ; Sat, 5 Feb 2005 07:17:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CxKM2-0002l6-6r for migo@homemail.com; Sat, 05 Feb 2005 02:27:42 -0500 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1CxKL1-0002Zi-MT for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Feb 2005 02:26:40 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1CxKKr-0002S5-Au for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Feb 2005 02:26:33 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1CxKKq-0002Qc-I7 for gnu-arch-users@gnu.org; Sat, 05 Feb 2005 02:26:28 -0500 Received: from [192.94.73.21] (helo=sdf.lonestar.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CxK20-00075e-P5; Sat, 05 Feb 2005 02:07:01 -0500 Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (IDENT:migo@ukato.freeshell.org [192.94.73.7]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.13.1/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j15765ek006486; Sat, 5 Feb 2005 07:06:05 GMT Received: (from migo@localhost) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.13.1/8.12.8/Submit) id j15765Ed021902; Sat, 5 Feb 2005 07:06:05 GMT Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 07:06:04 +0000 From: Mikhael Goikhman To: snogglethorpe@gmail.com, miles@gnu.org Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: release goals for Bazaar 1.1 Message-ID: <20050205070604.GB18959@ukato> Mail-Followup-To: snogglethorpe@gmail.com, miles@gnu.org, John A Meinel , "John S. Yates, Jr." , gnu-arch-users@gnu.org References: <1102095916.6942.43.camel@localhost> <20041211154916.GA1832@ukato> <20041211183809.GC3388@wisq.net> <873byasd73.fsf@tleepslib.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp> <41BDADF5.5070507@arbash-meinel.com> <20050205024050.GB26365@ukato> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i Cc: "John S. Yates, Jr." , gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-BeenThere: gnu-arch-users@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: a discussion list for all things arch-ish List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Errors-To: gnu-arch-users-bounces+migo=homemail.com@gnu.org Status: RO Content-Length: 1478 Lines: 38 On 05 Feb 2005 13:38:39 +0900, Miles Bader wrote: > > On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 02:40:50 +0000, Mikhael Goikhman 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. _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list Gnu-arch-users@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/