On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 11:08:02 +0100 Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 11:11:55AM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Wed, 5 Aug 2020 10:05:40 +0100 > > Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 10:49:35AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > > On 05/08/20 10:39, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > > >> Do you really use "git blame" that much? "git log -S" does more or > > > > >> less > > > > >> the same function (in a different way) and is not affected as much by > > > > >> large code movement and transformation patches. > > > > > > > > > > I use it a lot! Following stuff back to find where a change came > > > > > from and then asking people. > > > > > > > > Indeed, but I use "git log -S" instead. :) Another possibility is to > > > > just do "git log -p" and search for a relevant line of the code I'm > > > > "blaming". > > > > > > I used git blame alot too, but I don't think its a reason to not do the > > > cleanups. It is easy enough to just tell blame to use an earlier commit > > > if you see it displaying a refactor. I don't think such mild inconvenience > > > should stop us making otherwise desirable code changes > > > > I don't think people argue that it should block changes; it it simply > > another thing to consider when weighing benefits vs. drawbacks. > > Actually, I'm saying that including "git blame" in such a weighing is > the mechanism for blocking otherwise beneficial change to the code. Or > to put it another way, I believe the value assigned to "git blame" in > such a comparison is miniscule / effectively zero. The only time > "git blame" should win is if the change in question is purely the > bike shed colour and has no technical benefits at all. If there's any > technical benefit to making the change it should always win. We > shouldn't preserve technical debt in the code merely to avoid an impact > on "git blame". I think we have to agree to disagree on this. Making "git blame" harder to use is annoying, and at least for me there's a threshold of usefulness for the code change that should be considered. (No judgment on the proposed change here; I don't have really have a horse in that race.)
