threads / discuss / 25854

Patchbombing or not, that is the question

Subject: Patchbombing or not, that is the question

## tl;dr

6 messages between Nov 27, 2010 and Nov 27, 2010.

replies: 5people: 3as markdown or json

Giuseppe Bilotta· Nov 27, 2010, 17:18 UTC · lore

Hello all,

I prepared a bunch of patches to add support to some other browsers to git-web--browse (opera, seamonkey, elinks). Currently I did one patch per browser. Should I squash them all together? (The series will also contain some other patches that will stay separate.)

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Jonathan Nieder· Nov 27, 2010, 17:27 UTC · re: Giuseppe Bilotta · lore

Re: Patchbombing or not, that is the question

Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:

> I prepared a bunch of patches to add support to some other browsers to
> git-web--browse (opera, seamonkey, elinks). Currently I did one patch
> per browser. Should I squash them all together?

Yeah, I'd squash them.  (But I think either way would be fine.)

Could you support

	[browser "chromium-browser"]
		cmd=chromium-browser

while at it? :)

Thiago Farina· Nov 27, 2010, 17:40 UTC · re: Jonathan Nieder · lore

Re: Patchbombing or not, that is the question

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
>
>> I prepared a bunch of patches to add support to some other browsers to
>> git-web--browse (opera, seamonkey, elinks). Currently I did one patch
>> per browser. Should I squash them all together?
>
> Yeah, I'd squash them.  (But I think either way would be fine.)
>
> Could you support
>
>        [browser "chromium-browser"]
>                cmd=chromium-browser
>

Yeah, that would be great!

Giuseppe Bilotta· Nov 27, 2010, 18:13 UTC · re: Thiago Farina · lore

Re: Patchbombing or not, that is the question

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Thiago Farina <tfransosi@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 15 quoted lines

> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
>>
>>> I prepared a bunch of patches to add support to some other browsers to
>>> git-web--browse (opera, seamonkey, elinks). Currently I did one patch
>>> per browser. Should I squash them all together?
>>
>> Yeah, I'd squash them.  (But I think either way would be fine.)
>>
>> Could you support
>>
>>        [browser "chromium-browser"]
>>                cmd=chromium-browser
>>
> Yeah, that would be great!

Actually I think that in this case the 'chromimu' configuration should look for chromium-browser if chromium is not found.

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Jonathan Nieder· Nov 27, 2010, 18:34 UTC · re: Giuseppe Bilotta · lore

Re: Patchbombing or not, that is the question

Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:

> Actually I think that in this case the 'chromimu' configuration should
> look for chromium-browser if chromium is not found.

Even better might be to go straight for chromium-browser, to avoid confusion with ancient versions of chromium-bsu.

Anyway, I hadn't noticed the new support for chromium. Thanks for pointing it out.

Giuseppe Bilotta· Nov 27, 2010, 18:39 UTC · re: Jonathan Nieder · lore

Re: Patchbombing or not, that is the question

On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 7 quoted lines

> Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
>
>> Actually I think that in this case the 'chromimu' configuration should
>> look for chromium-browser if chromium is not found.
>
> Even better might be to go straight for chromium-browser, to avoid
> confusion with ancient versions of chromium-bsu.

More precisely, we should look for chromium-browser first, and if not found then use chromium. The fall-back to chromium is, I think, needed because I suspect the binary was renamed in Debian only. Can somebody with some other distribution confirm that chromium is called chromium there?

-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta