Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2010, #08; Sun, 24)

[Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 00:12 +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 02:43:01PM -0800, Jakub Narebski wrote:

> > You are right that actual caching support is in flux.  The discussion
> > continues: it is very good that we have the voice from Pasky, too.
> 
> Unfortunately, I can't give much time to it, or actual contributions.
> I think it would be great to apply at least the miscellanous-changes
> part to (i) move this further (ii) give jh some positive feedback. :)
> There are ugly minor things, but they can be patched up later. I think
> it's healthier for new gitweb stuff to develop more in-tree, even
> if that means few angry users annoyed about less-than-perfect UI stuff,
> rather than polish the diamond in infinite discussions; worse is better!
> The only thing we should be worried about is avoiding introducing new
> bad URL interfaces since we should keep backwards compatibility there.

I think that while some patches from the miscellaneous-changes part are
good now (and very nice to have, especially load checking and 
gitweb/Makefile), there needs to be one last, final reroll of those
patches.

I am waiting for response from (I guess busy) J.H.; I can do the re-roll
if he is too busy to work on it.

> For the main caching patch, it seems like good idea to take Jakub's
> split-up series instead, let's see what is J.H.'s opinion on the series?

Let me at least make them into proper patches, with commit messages and 
configureability at least of the original caching patch by J.H.

Also the question whether to create 'print -> print $out' patch, or to
manipulate *STDOUT instead must be solved, I think, before applying
those patches... well, at least beyond 'pu'.

I am waiting for promised J.H. comments, when he will have time for it...
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland