From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH 4/3] gitweb: Incremental blame (proof of concept) Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 16:47:12 -0800 Message-ID: <7v3agvy1v3.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> References: <20081209223703.28106.29198.stgit@localhost.localdomain> <20081210200908.16899.36727.stgit@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Luben Tuikov , Nanako Shiraishi , Petr Baudis , Fredrik Kuivinen To: Jakub Narebski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Dec 11 01:48:46 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1LAZjQ-0008K4-Nb for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2008 01:48:45 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753149AbYLKArX (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:47:23 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752961AbYLKArX (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:47:23 -0500 Received: from a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com ([207.106.133.19]:64563 "EHLO sasl.smtp.pobox.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752309AbYLKArW (ORCPT ); Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:47:22 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A9BD85739; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:47:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from pobox.com (unknown [68.225.240.211]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-sasl-fastnet.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 08E5185735; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:47:13 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <20081210200908.16899.36727.stgit@localhost.localdomain> (Jakub Narebski's message of "Wed, 10 Dec 2008 21:11:18 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 44DC1CB8-C71D-11DD-B7EF-5720C92D7133-77302942!a-sasl-fastnet.pobox.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jakub Narebski writes: > NOTE: This patch is RFC proof of concept patch!: it should be split > onto many smaller patches for easy review (and bug finding) in version > meant to be applied. Hmm, the comments an RFC requests for would certainly be based on reviews of the patch in question, so if the patch is known to be unsuitable for reviewing, what would that tell us, I wonder ;-)? Among the 700 lines added/deleted, 400 lines are from a single new file, so what may benefit from splitting would be the changes to gitweb.perl but it does not look so bad (I haven't really read the patch, though). > Differences between 'blame' and 'blame_incremental' output: Hmm, are these by design in the sense that "when people are getting incremental blame output, the normal blame output format is unsuitable for such and such reasons and that is why there have to be these differences", or "the code happens to produce slightly different results because it is implemented differently; the differences are listed here as due diligence"? > P.P.S. What is the stance for copyrigth assesments in the files > for git code, like the ones in gitweb/gitweb.perl and gitweb/blame.js? There is no copyright assignment. Everybody retains the own copyright on their own work. > P.P.P.S. Should I use Signed-off-by from Pasky and Fredrik if I based > my code on theirs, and if they all signed their patches? I think that is in line with what Certificate of Origin asks you to do.