Re: gitweb: kernel versions in the history (feature request, probably)
- From
- Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@o2.pl>
- Date
- Nov 21, 2007, 20:16 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4744921A.6000801@o2.pl>
- In-Reply-To
- <20071121151831.GO1001@machine.or.cz>
Petr Baudis wrote, On 11/21/2007 04:18 PM:
Show 17 quoted lines
> On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 08:52:17AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: >> ... >> tags >> 4 days ago v2.6.24-rc3 Linux 2.6.24-rc3 >> 2 weeks ago v2.6.24-rc2 Linux 2.6.24-rc2 >> 4 weeks ago v2.6.24-rc1 Linux 2.6.24-rc1 >> 6 weeks ago v2.6.23 Linux 2.6.23 >> >> which drives me crazy, because, without looking at the calendar, and >> calculator, I don't really know which month was 6 weeks ago, and 4 >> days ago, either! > > I have myself never been sure if the relative times are a good idea or > not. :-) Sometimes I hate them, sometimes they are more convenient... > > At any rate, if you click at the tag name, you should get tag page with > full date.
So, it's so easy! Great! It seems I've to get used to this clicking more. It seems I've become too cautious with this, when I've really - really, waited after each click there. (I mean a few months ago, and my connection was the same; sometimes, one such click took one whole break for coffee.)
I seems, there are simply two kinds of people wrt. calendar/time. I'm usually happy if I can figure by myself which day of week is today, but I wouldn't even try with something like 4 days ago. But I understand I'm not the brightest here...
So, maybe, some day, with: linux-kernel-for-dummies.org such things could be reconsidered...
Show 38 quoted lines
> >> So, I go to the: http://www.eu.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/, >> do some scrolling, look at this: >> ChangeLog-2.6.23 09-Oct-2007 20:38 3.8M >> >> and only now I can guess, this napi patch didn't manage to 2.6.23. >> Of course, usually I've to do a few more clicks and reading to make >> sure where it really started. >> >> So, this could suggest this 2007-10-10 (probably stored with time >> too), could be useful here... but it seems, I'm wrong. > > Yes, there are three scenarios: > > (i) The patch has been _created_ after the release date. It can't be in > the release. > (ii) The patch has been created before the release date, but _committed_ > after the release date. It can't be in the release either. > (iii) The patch has been committed before the release date. It _still_ > might not be in the release if it comes from a different branch. > Imagine, say, tglx accepting the patch in his branch, then Linus > releasing new kernel version, and only _then_ Linus merging tglx's > branch. > > So the time information isn't really too useful if you want to be any > sort of reliable. > >> Of course, this problem doesn't look so hard if we forget about >> git internals: I can imagine keeping a simple database, which >> could simply retrieve commit numbers from these ChangeLogs, and >> connecting this with gitweb's commit page as well... For >> performance reasons, doing it only for stable and testing, so with >> -rc 'precision' would be very helpful too. > > It isn't too hard if we don't forget about git internals either. It's > just that getting this information might not be cheap. But maybe I'm > wrong and this won't be a problem for sane projects. Someone should post > a patch. ;-)
It looks, after Kay's notice, my main problem is solved. And your current explanations are also very precious to me. Probably some things considered here could be done a bit better in the future, but I guess there is enough urgent work with git or kernel too, so let's say it's OK for now!
Thanks every good git people! Jarek P.