From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Baudis Subject: Re: GSoC 2010: "Integrated Web Client for git" proposal Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:51:13 +0200 Message-ID: <20100419115113.GC3563@machine.or.cz> References: <201004150630.44300.chriscool@tuxfamily.org> <201004181950.19610.jnareb@gmail.com> <20100418195623.GA3563@machine.or.cz> <201004191243.24209.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christian Couder , git@vger.kernel.org, Junio C Hamano , Sverre Rabbelier , Shawn O Pearce , Scott Chacon , Pavan Kumar Sunkara , Sam Vilain To: Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Apr 19 13:51:29 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O3pVd-0002K4-Mm for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:51:26 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752943Ab0DSLvQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:51:16 -0400 Received: from w241.dkm.cz ([62.24.88.241]:53927 "EHLO machine.or.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752328Ab0DSLvP (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:51:15 -0400 Received: by machine.or.cz (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6F05E86208E; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:51:13 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201004191243.24209.jnareb@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 12:43:22PM +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote: > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 21:56 +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: > > If the project is a success, I wanted to use it for mob branch editing > > on repo.or.cz. It could also be used as open-source Gist alternative. > > For that you would need editing file / editing contents action, but > this is explicitely excluded in current version of Pavan's proposal :-( Is it? I see it only being omitted. > > But it needs to be coded so that it does not require an actual checked > > out copy (which shouldn't be too much hassle). > > It would require using 'git hash-object -t blob -w --stdin' (from body > submitted via POST from textarea) plus 'git update-index --cacheinfo'. Yes. Not a whole lot of effort, seems to me. A downside is that you cannot use the working tree - index dichotomy, but life isn't perfect. > There is however complication that you would need to do open2/open3 > because git-hash-object would require bidirectional communication unless > you would use temporary file (command_bidi_pipe in Git.pm, untested). I think even just going through a temporary file is fine for initial implementation. > So additional step would be > > cp -fvR gitweb/lib /var/www/cgi-bin/ ;# as root Yes! > I hope that we could make installing gitweb as easy as > > make webscriptdir=/var/www/cgi-bin/ \ > gitweb-install > > or in more complicated case (gitweb modules not installed in cgi-bin) > > make webscriptdir=/var/www/cgi-bin/gitweb \ > GITWEB_BASE="/gitweb/" \ > GITWEBPERLLIB=/usr/local/lib/perl5 \ > gitweb-install > > or something like that (I do not know any standard for the name of build > configuration variable which tells where to install web aplication; > do you?) Ideally, yes, but that's not directly tied to the splitting effort. (No clue about the configuration variable.) > Well, I would perhaps start simply with > > gitweb.perl > lib/Gitweb.pm > > We can modify file organization later; what's important is the build > infrastructure (even if it is instruction in gitweb/INSTALL). That sounds like the best way. :) -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis http://pasky.or.cz/ | "Ars longa, vita brevis." -- Hippocrates