Re: [PATCH 1/2] gitweb: allow access to forks with strict_export

[Matt McCutchen <matt@mattmccutchen.net>]

On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 14:31 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Matt McCutchen <matt@mattmccutchen.net> writes:
> >
> > CC-ed Petr Baudis, author of forks support in gitweb.
> >
> >> git_get_projects_list excludes forks in order to unclutter the main
> >> project list, but this caused the strict_export check, which also relies
> >> on git_get_project_list, to incorrectly fail for forks.  This patch adds
> >> an argument so git_get_projects_list knows when it is being called for a
> >> strict_export check (as opposed to a user-visible project list) and
> >> doesn't exclude the forks.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Matt McCutchen <matt@mattmccutchen.net>
> >
> > Looks good for me.
> 
> That sounds like a broken API to me.
> 
> At least, please have the decency to not call the extra parameter "for
> strict export".  I would understand it if the extra parameter is called
> "toplevel_only" (or its negation, "include_forks").
> 
> IOW, don't name a parameter after the name of one caller that happens to
> want an unspecified special semantics, without saying what that special
> semantics is.  Instead, name it after the special semantics that the
> argument triggers.

I disagree.  The parameter is really "include forks (if there is such a
concept under the current config)", and with my second patch, it becomes
"include hidden projects" too.  That's really unwieldy.

In my view, the parameter makes the distinction between generating a
filtered list for user consumption and a list of everything for a
strict_export check.  The particular semantics it activates may evolve
as gitweb does (case in point: my second patch).  The current semantics
can be described in a comment on git_get_projects_list.

Granted, there may be a better name for the parameter than
$for_strict_export.  How about $include_all?

-- 
Matt