git-blameall VS Git

Thanks, I knew about -committerdate but not that you can set it as default sort, super useful. A few notes...

1. git columns gets real confusing if you have more data than fits the screen and you need to scroll. Numbers would help...

2. git maintenance sounds great but since I do a lot of rebases and stuff, I am worried: does this lose loose objects faster than gc would? I see gc is disabled but it's not clear.

3. Regarding git blame a little known but super useful script is https://github.com/gnddev/git-blameall . (I mean, it's so little known I myself needed to port it to Python 3 and I am no Python developer by any stretch.)

The author mentions git blame which is indeed an important tool but in more complex codebases it's entire possible the original introduction would require several steps because the code was refactored since. For this, git blameall is a wonderful and almost completely unknown utility. https://github.com/gnddev/git-blameall Yours truly did a quick Python 3 port this January, mostly using the automated toolset for it and the author, much to my surprise, committed it in a week despite the last commit was in 2013. So the project is not dead :)

Does anyone know whether git blameall https://github.com/ddev/git-blameall is easy to do with Fossil? It's a lesser known tool but I found it incredibly useful (hence why I did the Python 3, mostly automated tools but still).

Look at any PR/patch series that got merged into the Git project. https://github.com/git/git/

Any random one. Because those that did not meet the minimum criteria for a well-crafted history would not have passed review.

Boy, I can't find this either (but also, the kernel mailing list is _really_ difficult to search). I really remember Linus saying something like "it's not a real SCM, but maybe someone could build one on top of it someday" or something like that, but I cannot figure out how to find that.

You _can_ see, though, that in his first README, he refers to what he's building as not a "real SCM":

https://github.com/git/git/commit/e83c5163316f89bfbde7d9ab23...

Here is the direct link, as HN somehow removes the query string: https://github.com/git/git/commits?author=peff&since=2023-10...

I understand all that.

I'm saying, if you write a survey and one of the possible answers is "diff", but you don't clearly define what you mean by "diff", then don't be surprised if respondents use any reasonable definition that makes sense to them. Ask an ambiguous question, get a mishmash of answers.

The thing that Git uses for packfiles is called a "delta" by Git, but it's also reasonable to call it a "diff". After all, Git's delta algorithm is "greatly inspired by parts of LibXDiff from Davide Libenzi"[1]. Not LibXDelta but LibXDiff.

Yes, how Git stores blobs (using deltas) is orthogonal to how Git uses blobs. But while that orthogonality is useful for reasoning about Git, it's not wrong to think of a commit as the totality of what Git does, including that optimization. (Some people, when learning Git, stumble over the way it's described as storing full copies, think it's wasteful. For them to wrap their heads around Git, they have to understand that the optimization exists. Which makes sense because Git probably wouldn't be practical if it lacked that optimization.)

The reason I'm bringing all this up is, if you're trying to explain Git, which is what the original article is about, then it's very important to keep in mind that someone who is learning Git needs to know what you mean when you say "diff". Most people who already know Git would tend to gravitate toward the definition of "diff" that you're assuming (the thing that Git computes on the fly and never stores), but people who already know Git aren't the target audience when you're teaching Git.

---

[1] https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/diff-delta.c