... as suggested on the list.
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>

The default output mode is slightly different from git-annotate's.
However, git-annotate's output mode can be obtained by using the
'-c' flag.
Signed-off-by: NFredrik Kuivinen <freku045@student.liu.se>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>

Mark Wooding noticed there was a type mismatch warning in git.c; this
patch does things slightly differently (mostly tightening const) and
was what I was holding onto, waiting for the setup-revisions change
to be merged into the master branch.
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>

Here is an updated version of git-blame. The main changes compared to
the first version are:

* Use the new revision.h interface to do the revision walking
* Do the right thing in a lot of more cases than before. In particular
  parallel development tracks are hopefully handled sanely.
* Lots of clean-up

It still won't follow file renames though.

There are still some differences in the output between git-blame and
git-annotate. For example, in 'Makefile' git-blame assigns lines
354-358 to 455a7f32 and git-annotate
assigns the same lines to 79a9d8ea.

I think git-blame is correct in this case. This patterns occur in
several other places, git-annotate seems to sometimes assign lines to
merge commits when the lines actually changed in some other commit
which precedes the merge.

[jc: I have conned Ryan into doing test cases, so that it would
help development and fixes on both implementations.  Let the
battle begin! ;-) ]
Signed-off-by: NFredrik Kuivinen <freku045@student.liu.se>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>

I have also been working on a blame program. The algorithm is pretty
much the one described by Junio in his blame.perl. My variant doesn't
handle renames, but it shouldn't be too hard to add that. The output
is minimal, just the line number followed by the commit SHA1.

An interesting observation is that the output from my git-blame and
your git-annotate doesn't match on all files in the git
repository. One example where several lines differ is read-cache.c. I
haven't investigated it further to find out which one is correct.

The code should be considered as a work in progress. It certainly has
a couple of rough edges. The output looks fairly sane on the few files
I have tested it on, but it wouldn't be too surprising if it gets some
cases wrong.

[jc: adding it to pu for wider comments. I did minimum
whitespace fixups but it still needs an indent run and
-Wdeclaration-after-statement fixups.]
Signed-off-by: NFredrik Kuivinen <freku045@student.liu.se>
Signed-off-by: NJunio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>