Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] gitweb: add 'remotes' action

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 16, 2008, 00:29 UTC
Message-ID: <200811160129.17319.jnareb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <cb7bb73a0811150432s2f3ae4bfkc0fc29d92accc635@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, 15 Nov 2008, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:

Show 46 quoted lines

> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta wrote:
>>
>>> This action is similar to the 'heads' action, but it displays
>>> remote heads, grouped by remote repository.
>>
>> I think I would prefer would go together with the change that split
>> the 'heads' ('branches') part of summary view into 'heads' and
>> 'remotes', so that both section title header, and '...' continuation
>> if present, lead to proper view.
>>
>> So either
>>
>>  [heads]  # or [branches]
>>  master
>>  to-submit
>>  origin/master
>>  origin/next
>>  ...
>>
>> where both '[heads]' and (possibly) '...' link to 'heads' view showing
>> _both_ local branches (refs/heads/*) and remote-tracking branches
>> (refs/remotes/*), like in first patch of series (perhaps with some
>> subdivision).
>>
>> Or
>>
>>  [heads]
>>  master
>>  to-submit
>>  ...
>>  [remotes]
>>  origin/master
>>  origin/next
>>  ...
>>
>> where '[heads]' link to 'heads' view which shows only local branches
>> (refs/heads/*), and '[remotes]' link to 'remotes' view which shows only
>> remote-tracking branches.
> 
> That's funny, I just squashed this patch with the summary list split
> view patch 8-) I'm going for the second option, to have [heads] link
> to heads which only lists local heads, and [remotes] linking to
> remotes that lists the remotes. We may or may not want to rather have
> [branches] instead of [heads], and keep the heads action to mean *all*
> heads, local and remote, but I'm not sure about it.

Errr... that was what I meant. First patch adding feature, and adding remotes (not separated) to 'heads' section and 'heads' view (it could have renamed 'heads' section to 'branches' but I feel that unnecessary), and second patch squashed which adds 'remotes' section _and_ 'remotes' action.

Show 5 quoted lines

>> Nice. I see the difference from git_heads is using $project . ' remotes'
>> in place of $project in git_print_header_div() (why?),
> 
> FWIW, I decided to scratch that additional ' remotes' string when
> squashing this patch.

Hmmm... I'm not sure if $project in git_print_header_div() for those two actions is good thing to have...

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland