threads / rfc / 43355

patchRe: [PATCH/RFC] gitweb: New improved patchset view

Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] gitweb: New improved patchset view

## tl;dr

3 messages between Oct 29, 2006 and Oct 29, 2006. Diffs are folded; open one to read it.

replies: 2people: 2as markdown or json

Jakub Narebski· Oct 29, 2006, 17:50 UTC · lore

A couple of questions regarding new patchset/diff look for gitweb. Currently patch starts with "git diff" header

  diff --git a/file1 b/file2

then we have a couple of extended header lines

  old|new|deleted file|new file mode <mode>
  copy|rename from|to <path>
  (dis)?similarity index <percent>
  index <hash>..<hash> [<mode>]

then we have two-line from-file/to-file header

  --- a/file1
  +++ b/file2

then patch itself.

1. Which parts to convert to hyperlinks, and which to do not? Which
   links have visible and which hidden (underline on mouseover, the same
   color as neighbouring text)?

   I think that a/file1 in "git diff" header should be turned into
   visible hyperlink unless file is created, and b/file2 should be link
   unless file is deleted.

   Also both <hash>-es in "index" extended header lines should be turned
   into links, as it is the only way to have hyperlink to all previous
   versions of the file in the case of "combined diff" format (to be
   added later). The question is if those hyperlinks should be visible;
   I don't have compelling reason against. Should we use title attribute
   to give filename perhaps, or is it unnecessary?

   Currently file1 and file2 in "--- a/file1" and "+++ b/file2" are
   turned into hidden links. Should we leave it, or should we remove
   this link as we have similar link just above? If we decide to have
   this link, should we also hyperlink <path> in "copy|rename" extended
   header line?

2. Use quoted or unquoted filename, remove or leave surrounding quotes
   in quoted filename? Should we unquote the not hyperlinked filename
   in the case of creation/deletion? What should be span of link:
     "a/_file1_", "_a/file1_", _"a/file1"_
     "_file_", _"file"_ 
   (where '_' marks beginning and end of link) for quoted filenames?
   What should be span of link for unquoted filenames:
      a/_file_, _a/file_
   Currently gitweb uses a/_file_ in ---/+++ line.

3. How (and if) to explain numerical mode: the currently used
   <mode>/<symbolic mode> (<file type>) e.g. 100755/-rwxr-xr-x (file).
   Or <mode> (<file type>) should be enough? Should we mark the addition
   compared to git-diff output? Or should we explain <mode> only on
   mouseover, using for example:
     <abbr title="100644/-rw-r--r-- (file)">100644</abbr>
   or just
     <abbr title="executable file">100755</abbr>?

-- 
Jakub Narebski

Luben Tuikov· Oct 29, 2006, 19:55 UTC · re: Jakub Narebski · lore

--- Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> A couple of questions regarding new patchset/diff look for gitweb.
> Currently patch starts with "git diff" header
> 
>   diff --git a/file1 b/file2
> 
> then we have a couple of extended header lines
> 
>   old|new|deleted file|new file mode <mode>
>   copy|rename from|to <path>
>   (dis)?similarity index <percent>
>   index <hash>..<hash> [<mode>]
> 
> then we have two-line from-file/to-file header

First revert back to monospace in the commit message. As I mentioned in that other email, where the person didn't CC you and thus so I didn't, see commit 4b7ce6e2d6ba088da50de1df38b040ea2c0b8f18.

Can you please hyperlink what you had intended to quote? I.e. filenames which can lead the user browsing to a state (pre-rename, post-rename, etc). Thanks.

Show 10 quoted lines

> 
>   --- a/file1
>   +++ b/file2
> 
> then patch itself.
> 
> 
> 1. Which parts to convert to hyperlinks, and which to do not? Which
>    links have visible and which hidden (underline on mouseover, the same
>    color as neighbouring text)?

I think the current state of your patch is good, sans the comments received so far: monospace, that bug in the index links, etc. Lets get that in, and then you can RFC another improvement on top of this.

>    I think that a/file1 in "git diff" header should be turned into
>    visible hyperlink unless file is created, and b/file2 should be link
>    unless file is deleted.

This is intuitive and makes sense.

>    Also both <hash>-es in "index" extended header lines should be turned
>    into links, as it is the only way to have hyperlink to all previou

Fix the bug though.

>    versions of the file in the case of "combined diff" format (to be
>    added later). The question is if those hyperlinks should be visible;

I personally love little hidden gems, but some people like everything to be overly obvious to them. Hidden gems are part of the learning, but I'm sure I'm not going to convince everyone.

Hidden.

Show 6 quoted lines

>    I don't have compelling reason against. Should we use title attribute
>    to give filename perhaps, or is it unnecessary?
> 
>    Currently file1 and file2 in "--- a/file1" and "+++ b/file2" are
>    turned into hidden links. Should we leave it, or should we remove
>    this link as we have similar link just above? If we decide to have

Leave it -- it's cool.

>    this link, should we also hyperlink <path> in "copy|rename" extended
>    header line?

If it makes sense.

> 2. Use quoted or unquoted filename, remove or leave surrounding quotes
>    in quoted filename? Should we unquote the not hyperlinked filename

Are you familiar with the term "legalism"?

Show 7 quoted lines

>    in the case of creation/deletion? What should be span of link:
>      "a/_file1_", "_a/file1_", _"a/file1"_
>      "_file_", _"file"_ 
>    (where '_' marks beginning and end of link) for quoted filenames?
>    What should be span of link for unquoted filenames:
>       a/_file_, _a/file_
>    Currently gitweb uses a/_file_ in ---/+++ line.

Unquoted! Now that we've solved this "problem", lets move on to more interesting things. ;-)

> 3. How (and if) to explain numerical mode: the currently used

Let's not explain it for now. Let's have your patch go in sans the comments already posted. We can always debate on that later.

Thanks,
   Luben

Show 15 quoted lines

>    <mode>/<symbolic mode> (<file type>) e.g. 100755/-rwxr-xr-x (file).
>    Or <mode> (<file type>) should be enough? Should we mark the addition
>    compared to git-diff output? Or should we explain <mode> only on
>    mouseover, using for example:
>      <abbr title="100644/-rw-r--r-- (file)">100644</abbr>
>    or just
>      <abbr title="executable file">100755</abbr>?
> -- 
> Jakub Narebski
> Poland
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Jakub Narebski· Oct 29, 2006, 20:29 UTC · re: Luben Tuikov · lore

Luben Tuikov wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> --- Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > A couple of questions regarding new patchset/diff look for gitweb.
> > Currently patch starts with "git diff" header
> > 
> >   diff --git a/file1 b/file2
> > 
> > then we have a couple of extended header lines
> > 
> >   old|new|deleted file|new file mode <mode>
> >   copy|rename from|to <path>
> >   (dis)?similarity index <percent>
> >   index <hash>..<hash> [<mode>]
> > 
> > then we have two-line from-file/to-file header
> 
> First revert back to monospace in the commit message.
> As I mentioned in that other email, where the person
> didn't CC you and thus so I didn't, see commit 
> 4b7ce6e2d6ba088da50de1df38b040ea2c0b8f18.

This regression was caused by the not-accepted (I think) patch "gitweb: Slight visual improvements to commitdiff view", and is not caused by _this_ patch.

I'll redo abovementioned patch correctly later.

> Can you please hyperlink what you had intended to
> quote?  I.e. filenames which can lead the user browsing to a
> state (pre-rename, post-rename, etc).  Thanks.

I don't understand this comment. The above is pre-changes git-diff patch output. The changes are/were mentioned below.

Show 14 quoted lines

> > 
> >   --- a/file1
> >   +++ b/file2
> > 
> > then patch itself.
> > 
> > 
> > 1. Which parts to convert to hyperlinks, and which to do not? Which
> >    links have visible and which hidden (underline on mouseover, the same
> >    color as neighbouring text)?
> 
> I think the current state of your patch is good, sans the comments
> received so far: monospace, that bug in the index links, etc.
> Lets get that in, and then you can RFC another improvement on top of this.

O.K. I send the corrected version (as "take 2") in a while.

-- 
Jakub Narebski