From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Johannes Sixt Subject: Re: [PATCH] gitweb: Add js=1 before an URI fragment to fix line number links Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:44:03 +0200 Message-ID: <4E8170B3.8040205@viscovery.net> References: <1317060642-25488-1-git-send-email-peter@stuge.se> <7v62kf2jf4.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110926194639.25339.qmail@stuge.se> <7vipof0zx0.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20110926222801.14985.qmail@stuge.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Peter Stuge X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Sep 27 08:44:18 2011 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 1R8ROq-0008P4-EA for gcvg-git-2@lo.gmane.org; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:44:16 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751170Ab1I0GoM (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:44:12 -0400 Received: from lilzmailso01.liwest.at ([212.33.55.23]:57897 "EHLO lilzmailso02.liwest.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751052Ab1I0GoL (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:44:11 -0400 Received: from cpe228-254-static.liwest.at ([81.10.228.254] helo=theia.linz.viscovery) by lilzmailso02.liwest.at with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R8ROe-0003m4-El; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:44:04 +0200 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (J6T.linz.viscovery [192.168.1.95]) by theia.linz.viscovery (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2AD191660F; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 08:44:04 +0200 (CEST) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de; rv:1.9.2.22) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/3.1.14 In-Reply-To: <20110926222801.14985.qmail@stuge.se> X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Am 9/27/2011 0:28, schrieb Peter Stuge: > Junio C Hamano wrote: >> You don't have to explain these to *me* specifically as a response >> to this thread. What I meant was that your patch should have these >> necessary descriptions in its proposed commit log message. > > IMO not so neccessary if one knows a little web and javascript, which > is probably likely for a gitweb change.. > > It's a simple fix of links broken by manual URI manipulation that > didn't consider fragments. Is the subject description really not > enough? No, it is not. The target audience of a commit message are people like I am. I do know a bit of Perl, and a bit of Javascript; I know how an URL is structured; I would find my way through the gitweb code if the need arises. But I am not an expert in any of these areas. The subject alone is not sufficient because I do not know for sure what an "URI fragment" is or what role line numbers in gitweb's links play. The explanations and examples you gave in a later email were very enlightening, and they would be very helpful if *I* am forced to hack gitweb, and if I need to understand why this particular change was good. Finding the right balance between verbosity and terseness needs practice, but to write *no* justification is practically always wrong. -- Hannes