I don't know, "praise" is a really generic word. "Blame" very specifically means, "who did this." And I feel like it's often used in a non-disparaging way: "Who organized this surprise party?" "You can blame me."

Also, truthly, if you're looking to see who/win a line of code was authored, it's almost always because you're tracking down a problem. :)

That is actually an SVNism. SVN had 'annotate', 'ann', and 'praise' all aliased to 'blame'.

OP here.

> That is actually an SVNism.

Yep. From the article:

> Taking the lead from SVN, I alias praise onto blame…

:)

I actually did read the fine article afterwards and noticed that. Nice job, in fact this was one of the few HN submissions that drew me to both the comments and the article!

It seems awfully silly. Are we really that afraid of hurting someone's feelings by "blaming" them for doing something positive?

Hey! OP here.

> Are we really that afraid of hurting someone’s feelings…

I don’t do it to save peoples’ feelings: I do it because there are two separate use cases for determining the author of something—sometimes I really do not want to blame[1] someone.

1. blame — verb: feel or declare that (someone or something) is responsible for a fault or wrong.

To me, the obvious alias has always been "git credit". It's specific, but completely neutral.

Had someone on Twitter suggest `git who` which I think also strikes a great balance.

I always thought of it as blaming a commit for a change, not a person for a mistake. I can see how it could be taken badly though since the output makes a point of putting the author's name next to the commit id.

"praise" is equally as loaded. Should be "last-change" or something.