Re: RFD: Shipping GitBrowser.js for instaweb

From: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Date: May 3, 2010, 07:57 UTC
Message-ID: <4BDE81D8.8070505@drmicha.warpmail.net>
In-Reply-To: <m3wrvmf4ei.fsf@localhost.localdomain>

Jakub Narebski venit, vidit, dixit 02.05.2010 22:14:

Show 19 quoted lines

> Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net> writes:
> 
>> I was wondering whether it would make sense to ship GitBrowser.js with
>> Git and how much it would take to do so.
>>
>> My personal answer to the 1st Q is Yes: instaweb as well as simple
>> gitweb installs would benefit from a graphical DAG viewer.
>>
>> About the required effort I have no clue: I find it difficult to see
>> through which repo contains current gitweb, current repo.or.cz mods, and
>> especially the GitBrowser integration bits. Maybe we could ship the
>> integration bits without the actual GitBrowser if that is more feasible?
> 
> The integration parts are actually present in gitweb, I think.  It is
> a matter of configuration to enable 'graphiclog' link like in
> http://repo.or.cz
> 
> GitBrowser.js is not, I think, the best solution for having graphical
> history in gitweb, but would do...

After having a more thorough look at it I agree... We don't want to inflate $GIT_DIR/gitweb more than necessary.

But what are the alternatives? Something svg/canvas would be nice, I guess. The ruby frontends with graphlog don't convince me at all (neither performance-wise nor layout-wise).

Michael