Re: [PATCH/RFC] gitweb: Don't pass --full-history to git-log(1)
Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com writes: Heh, in 2008 we already had more than a few dozen. I think (1) It is perfectly OK to add an UI option to let the web visitor choose between simplified and full history at runtime, optionally with a new gitweb.conf option to let the project owner choose which one is the default; (2) It is also OK to add gitweb.conf option to let the project/site choose between the two, optionally allowing the web visitor to override it with something like (1). Anything else would not give the same out-of-the-box experience and would probably not fly well. Just to make sure, would not fly well is not an outright rejection (given enough thrust, even a pig could fly). An alternative with a bit more friction may be to do a variant of (2), without UI but only with gitweb.conf tweakability, _and_ flipped default. That will break the out-of-the-box experience but I suspect that many people would not notice (because their history is linear), some people who do notice would like the change, and the remainder can tweak their installation back to the full-history version, as long the change of the default is prominently advertised. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[PATCH/RFC] gitweb: Don't pass --full-history to git-log(1)
When you look at the history for a file via git log we don't show
--full-history by default, but the Gitweb UI does so, which can be very
confusing for all the reasons discussed in History Simplification in
git-log(1) and in
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/89400/focus=90659
We've been doing history via --full-history since pretty much forever,
but I think this is much more usable, and on a typical project with lots
of branches being merged it makes for a much less confusing view. We do
this for git log by default, why wouldn't Gitweb follow suit?
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com
---
gitweb/gitweb.perl | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gitweb/gitweb.perl b/gitweb/gitweb.perl
index 7a5b23a..2913896 100755
--- a/gitweb/gitweb.perl
+++ b/gitweb/gitweb.perl
@@ -7387,7 +7387,7 @@ sub git_log_generic {
}
my @commitlist =
parse_commits($commit_hash, 101, (100 * $page),
- defined $file_name ? ($file_name,
--full-history) : ());
+ defined $file_name ? $file_name : ());
my $ftype;
if (!defined $file_hash defined $file_name) {
--
2.1.3
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH/RFC] gitweb: Don't pass --full-history to git-log(1)
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com writes: When you look at the history for a file via git log we don't show --full-history by default, but the Gitweb UI does so, which can be very confusing for all the reasons discussed in History Simplification in git-log(1) and in http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/89400/focus=90659 We've been doing history via --full-history since pretty much forever, but I think this is much more usable, and on a typical project with lots of branches being merged it makes for a much less confusing view. We do this for git log by default, why wouldn't Gitweb follow suit? http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/89400/focus=90758 seems to agree with you in principle that this would be what gitweb should do if it were written today. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH/RFC] gitweb: Don't pass --full-history to git-log(1)
On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com writes: When you look at the history for a file via git log we don't show --full-history by default, but the Gitweb UI does so, which can be very confusing for all the reasons discussed in History Simplification in git-log(1) and in http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/89400/focus=90659 We've been doing history via --full-history since pretty much forever, but I think this is much more usable, and on a typical project with lots of branches being merged it makes for a much less confusing view. We do this for git log by default, why wouldn't Gitweb follow suit? http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/89400/focus=90758 seems to agree with you in principle that this would be what gitweb should do if it were written today. I'm reminded of the make(1) story about not supporting spaces instead of tabs because the guy already had a few dozen users. We could have changed this in 2008, when Git already had much fewer users, and I think we can still change it. It makes more sense as a default, especially on busy repos with lots of merges. At work where lots of merges are in flight literally 1/10 commits for any given file is relevant. Who'd be linking to gitweb's log output expecting its semantics to never change, and is use case more important than having a saner view for the vast majority of users who are just browsing around? But if there's strong objections to it a coworker who encountered this made a patch to it to add an extra full history an addition to the history view (which would change, but not the permalinks), in case there were objections to just changing it. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: [PATCH/RFC] gitweb: Don't pass --full-history to git-log(1)
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason ava...@gmail.com writes: I'm reminded of the make(1) story about not supporting spaces instead of tabs because the guy already had a few dozen users. We could have changed this in 2008, when Git already had much fewer users, Heh, in 2008 we already had more than a few dozen. I think (1) It is perfectly OK to add an UI option to let the web visitor choose between simplified and full history at runtime, optionally with a new gitweb.conf option to let the project owner choose which one is the default; (2) It is also OK to add gitweb.conf option to let the project/site choose between the two, optionally allowing the web visitor to override it with something like (1). Anything else would not give the same out-of-the-box experience and would probably not fly well. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe git in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
