Re: [PATCH 6/6] GITWEB - Separate defaults from main file

["J.H." <warthog9@kernel.org>]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Fri, 11 Dec 2009, J.H. wrote:
>>
>>>>> This is also a not-so-subtle start of trying to break up gitweb into
>>>>> separate files for easier maintainability, having everything in a
>>>>> single file is just a mess and makes the whole thing more complicated
>>>>> than it needs to be.  This is a bit of a baby step towards breaking it
>>>>> up for easier maintenance.
>>>> The question is if easier maintenance and development by spliting
>>>> gitweb for developers offsets ease of install for users.
>>> This would just get dropped into the same location that gitweb.cgi 
>>> exists in, there is no real difference in installation, and thus I can't 
>>> see this as an issue for users.
>> To be more exact you have to know that you have to drop _generated files_,
>> which means (for this version of patch) gitweb.cgi and gitweb_defaults.pl
>> (or whatever the generated file with config variables would be named).
>>
>>
>> ATTENTION!
> 
> You didn't have to shout.
> 
> Any progress on this front?

Sadly, no.  Busy weekend and a need to get some of the kernel.org 
servers upgraded has taken some precedence.  I should be circling back 
around on this tomorrow I think.

> Not that I am anxious to queue new topics to 'next' right now (we are
> frozen for 1.6.6), but I think having what is proven to work well at a
> real site like k.org is much better than waiting for an unproven
> reimplementation using somebody else's framework only for your theoretical
> cleanliness.  John has better things to do than doing such a rewrite
> himself, and even if you helped the process by producing a competing
> caching scheme based on existing web caching engines, the aggregated
> result (not just the web caching engine you base your work on) needs to
> get a similar field exposure to prove itself that it can scale to the load
> k.org sees, which would be quite a lot of work, no?