[gleenn]

Isn't this sort of an inconsequential point? The commit still has one and only one author and that's almost certainly what I'm looking for so I know who to go ask questions about their code. I also use it to find the commit but less frequently.

[sshine]

No, commits can be co-authored.

And the committer and author don’t even need to be the same!

But the point, as I read it, is: what matters is the context, i.e. if a line is faulty, how did things look like when it wasn’t faulty? The commit’s content is more often more important than the committer, although the committer is useful because you can ask them if they’re still around.

[pjc50]

At my last workplace, the codebase was about 25 years old, there were three of us, and one of us was the original author. You could simply guess "Gerald wrote this" and you'd be right nine times out of ten. However, it turns out that software developers have finite memory themselves, and svn blame was useful in tracing a line of code back to the original ticket.

Linking a line of code back to the commit is useful even if you can't ask the author about it. It tells you what other lines of code are involved and what the overall purpose is. It's significantly more useful if you can link it into documentation outside the code: ticketing systems, requirements docs, etc.

The main limit to svn blame in that situation was that quite often it would hit commit 1, when the codebase had been imported from Visual SourceSafe.

[rav]

On a small team I usually already know who wrote the code I'm reading, but it's nice to see if a block of code is all from the same point in time, or if some of the lines are the result of later bugfixing. It's also useful to find the associated pull request for a block of code, to see what issues were considered in code review, to know whether something that seems odd was discussed or glossed over when the code was merged in the first place.

[mckn1ght]

I find the GitHub blame view indispensable for this kind of code archeology, as they also give you an easy way to traverse the history of lines of code. In blame, you can go back to the previous revision that changed the line and see the blame for that, and on and on.

I really want to find or build a tool that can automatically traverse history this way, like git-evolve-log.

[eichin]

I've been carrying around a copy of "git blameall" for years - looks like https://github.com/gnddev/git-blameall is the same one - that basically does this, but keeps it all interleaved in one output (which works pretty well for archeology, especially if you're looking at "work hardened" code.)

(Work hardening is a metalworking term where metal bent back and forth (or hammered) too much becomes brittle; an analogous effect shows up in code, where a piece of code that has been bugfixed a couple of times will probably be need more fixes; there was a published result a decade or so back about using this to focus QA efforts...)

[follower]

"Cregit" tool might be of interest to you, it generates token-based (rather than line-based) git "blame" annotation views: https://github.com/cregit/cregit

Example output based on Linux kernel @ "Cregit-Linux: how code gets into the kernel": https://cregit.linuxsources.org/

I learned of Cregit recently--just submitted it to HN after seeing multiple recent HN comments discussing issues related to line-based "blame" annotation granularity:

"Cregit-Linux: how code gets into the kernel": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43451654

[weaksauce]

there is https://github.com/emacsmirror/git-timemachine which is really nice if you use emacs.

[lionkor]

No, if your commits are meaningful and have plenty of context, like they should, then you are not looking for the author. Instead, you are looking for "why is this here", and the commit should tell you.

[lubutu]

I mean, no. If you work on a codebase that's been going for more than a few years, the author likely doesn't even work there anymore. The commit is the important thing.

[iterance]

Frankly the commit message is usually the important thing. I care about why a change happened. Give me a Jira ticket, or a line of reasoning, or some documentation. I need to know this far more often than I care who literally typed the code in the computer.

[globular-toast]

You also shouldn't assume the commit author is the same person who literally typed the code. Git is a version control system, not an audit trail.