Aaron Bentley wrote:

quoted text
> Linus Torvalds wrote:

quoted text
>> So yes, "git blame" is a _hell_ of a lot more powerful than anybody elses 
>> "annotate", as far as I know. I literally suspect that nobody else comes 
>> even close.

Well without the content based detection of contents copying and moving
which git-blame wouldn't work as well as it work now.
 
quoted text
> I notice that blame has an option to limit the annotation to recent
> history.  I can only assume that is for performance reasons.  bzr
> annotate doesn't need a feature like that, because annotations are
> explicit in bzr's storage format. 

But you don't have content movement tracking.

quoted text
> 
>                                   I expect that even if we were to 
> extend annotate to track content across files, it would still be so fast
> that we wouldn't need it.

I think not.


The first example:

$ time git blame -C revision.c >/dev/null

real    0m7.577s
user    0m7.248s
sys     0m0.020s

while without content copying and moving detection we have

$ time git blame revision.c >/dev/null

real    0m2.108s
user    0m2.044s
sys     0m0.024s

(on 2000 BogoMIPS CPU).
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html