Re: [PATCH GSoC 2/3] git-instaweb: Configure it to work with a global server root and projects list

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 19 May 2010, Pavan Kumar Sunkara wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 2010 01:05:57 +0200, Jakub Narebski wrote:

> > Well, I can understand that.
> >
> > There are two options how to resolve this issue without adding yet
> > another script (although on the other hand git-web-gui / git-client
> > could share code with git-instaweb just like git-difftool and
> > git-mergetool do).
> >
> > First is to leave git-instaweb similar to how it is now, with pid file,
> > server config file, gitweb config file, etc. in $GIT_DIR/gitweb, but
> > if it is invoked outside any git repository, start it in "repository
> > administration" mode, i.e. on the page that allows one to create new
> > repository or clone repository.
> 
> But this solution requires starting of many apache servers on many
> ports which is quite complicated and even messier.

I agree with that.  I guess that git-instaweb was created mainly for the
situation where you work in single repository, and does not support well
situation where you move from repository to repository, and run git-instaweb
in different repositories.


As I wrote earlier:

   Now, current git-instaweb behavior has its quirks, but having
   git-instaweb show _current_ repository is a very important feature,
   and I'd rather we didn't lose it in transition.

> > The alternate solution would be to follow the idea implemented in this
> > patch, namely per-user pid file, gitweb config file, server config file
> > etc. and the *list of projects* file in $HOME/.gitweb (or whenever
> > XDG / FHS / LSB says it should be named), _but_ add an easy way to add
> > a new project (a new repositoey) to list.
> 
> The feature *Adding repository to client* in my project proposal will
> take care of this.

That's good, but...

> >  Perhaps even make
> > 'git instaweb', when run from inside git repository, add automatically
> > current repository to list (unless it is present there already), and
> > perhaps open 'summary' page for said repository.
> 
> Yeah, we can do that but I think I will do it in another commit.

...this is really needed, in my opinion.

I agree that it should be in separate commit.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland