Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] gitweb: git_split_heads_body function.

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 16, 2008, 14:21 UTC
Message-ID: <200811161521.53993.jnareb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <cb7bb73a0811160426g1e56faa7ia9b1f398fea039a8@mail.gmail.com>

Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 6 quoted lines

>> The problems with nesting is those pesky remotes with only single
>> tracked branch to them; they are I think quote common... well, unless
>> you do one-shot pull, directly into local branch.
> 
> My idea with this would be to only create a group if it has at least
> N > 1 (probably N=2) entries.

A bit of complication is that you would have then series of 'uncategorized' (not in any subsection) entries / remote-tracking branches.

Show 8 quoted lines

>> All that said, splitting 'remotes' section is difficult; using first
>> dirname as section is probably easiest, and good enough in most cases.
>> That is why I think this part should be put into separate series, to
>> not hinder rest of patches.
> 
> Yes, I will resend the 'remote_heads' feature as a new (reduced)
> patchset, then add (separate patchset) grouping for ref lists, and
> then add (yet another patchset) detached head.

That is I think a good idea.

P.S. I think that sending this patch series for review, even if it was not perfect was a very good idea... well, perhaps some patches could be marked as RFC.

It is hard work to prepare good patches, then wait for review, then wait a bit that there is no further review, working on the patches, resend and wait for review, or for Ack and merge-in... Keep up good work.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland