Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] gitweb: Deal with HEAD pointing to unborn branch in "heads" view
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 16, 2012, 22:41 UTC
- Message-ID
- <201202162341.09712.jnareb@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vr4xuy12f.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
On Thu, 16 Feb 2012, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes: > > > Gitweb has problems if HEAD points to an unborn branch, with no > > commits on it yet, but there are other branches present (so it is not > > newly initialized repository). > > It would be more readable if you rephrase the vague "has problems" with a > concrete description of what the problem is.
Sorry about this.
The problem is that gitweb would generate the following warning, writing it in web server logs:
Use of uninitialized value in string eq
> Also, drop the " (so it is ...)" part, which does not add much useful > information. Your next paragraph describes how a repository can come to > this state anyway.
O.K.
Anyway the description that repository might be in such a strange state might be more important that the patch in itself...
Show 13 quoted lines
> > This can happen if non-bare repository (with default 'master' branch) > > is updated not via committing but by other means like push to it, or > > Gerrit. It can happen also just after running "git checkout --orphan > > <new branch>" but before creating any new commit on this branch. > > > > This commit adds test and fixes the issue of being on unborn branch > > (of HEAD not pointing to a commit) in "heads" view, and also in > > "summary" view -- which includes "heads" excerpt as subview. > > The reader has not seen anything more than "has problems" at this point, > so "fixes the issue of ..." is not very helpful. You could have just said > "adds tests and fixes it", if you said that the unspecified "problems" > apear in "heads" and "summary" view at the beginning of the log message.
O.K.
Should I re-roll this patch with improved commit message?
-- Jakub Narebski Poland