Why isn't anyone talking about the git blame command?

What about it? It's a pretty old feature most people who know how to use git are aware of.

The negativity in it's word. It's a tracking tool. Not a blaming tool.

Propose an alternative in an issue.
https://git-scm.com/community

@girlwhocodes while its a tracking tool, its often used to identify who is the cause of some bad code, in effect blaming them.

And yes its a negative word, but if you have followed Linus Torwalds for some time, he created git among other things, he is not very shy about blaming people for bad code ;)

Even if he has admitted it had been to much and he has said he would tone down his criticism.

But as @SortOfTested said, offer a better word, now is probably a good time to do so.

But trace or log already has a distinct use in development, and blame, even if negative, is very descriptive.

@Voxera There's already git annotate which actually serves the purpose.

@girlwhocodes So what is the point of this rant, then?

@Root Why does git blame still exists? As GitHub has already removed the term "master", this command should also be worth putting on concern.

@girlwhocodes There is already an alias exactly like you want; you want to redact the original from history, too?

I just want to know why it's not a concern yet @Root

@girlwhocodes Because it isn't a concern.

It has already been given a politically correct alias: annotate. Really though, that alias should have been "praise" so there's one negative alias, one positive. Use whichever applies. By contrast, "annotate" doesn't really mean anything. It's the epitome of bland.

But I digress.
Why do you want to erase history?

@Root Didn't imply anything about removing history. It's totally okay to look for author revisions, who done what. But it shouldn't sound like blaming.

@girlwhocodes Feel free to use `annotate` or add your own `praise` alias. It's ridiculously easy to do.

@Root It's not a personal issue.

@girlwhocodes Why are you advocating for its removal if it doesn't affect you, and nobody else seems to care either?

Please, help me understand because that doesn't make any sense to me at all.

Github should have never removed master, as it was just for virtue signaling.

What exactly is your problem with blame? Yes, it's negative, so what? Often this function is used to find out who wrote problematic code. And yes, they will get blamed for that.

The world isn't focused around your needs and shouldn't be. Work life can be hard at times. People should start adapt to their life and not the other way around.

@girlwhocodes because removing it will break thousands of existing integrations that depend on it which would only accomplish one of two things, a fork that does not remove it, and users that stop updating and therefore might use a version where bugs are found but not fixed.

Also, most of the other words that are up for change are because they are degenerative towards a group of people, blame is just plain negative to every one so its in that regard already equal to all.

@Makenshi in this I agree, master as branch is like master in teacher, from master apprentice or like master copy in printing also derived from a master, some one skilled or “perfect”

In the sense of master slave, master has inherited this role but master did not originate in the slave context.

So to remove master in places it was directly related to slave, sure, but in places it reflects the original no.

Blacklist/whitelist is another matter, even IF blacklist was more in reference to the color of the notebooks, the combination of black and white where black is the bad one is to close to the master slave context and I understand that many will feel like it means something more.

At the risk of sounding 100% snarky; Because if they got rid of "blame" then they couldn't blame all the "privileged", they need it there.

I think ppl take it too personally than they should: you don't usually blame person, you blame the code

I call it git flame for a reason

Tired of the sjw trying to rename all words