Re: [PATCH] gitweb: Different colours for tags and heads

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Aug 12, 2006, 00:58 UTC
Message-ID: <7v4pwisrap.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <ebj6c3$4cj$1@sea.gmane.org>

Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:

> But they can be put into anonymous arrayref (e.g. ['heads/next',
> 'heads/autoconf'] at the start of 'autoconf' branch, or ['heads/master',
> 'heads/next', 'tags/v1.4.2'], not 'heads/master:heads/next:tags/v1.4.2'
> my patch did.

Concatenating them with ':' into a single string, only to later split it, sounds simply stupid; I'd go for arrayref if I were you.

> By the way, is it really usefull to have shortened ref name, e.g. 'web' for
> 'jn/web'? That is what gitweb does currently (only without giving ling name
> at all). It is probably bad practice, but I've had branches ab/sth and
> zz/sth, with the same shortname.

I think most people tend to use unique refs, so maybe showing the shortname by default and unique suffix when ambiguous (that would end up always showing minimal unique suffix) would be reasonable.