Jan Engelhardt [off-list ref] writes:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
+# git-??????
Hmmmm...
+&main();
+
+sub main ()
+{
+ &Getopt::Long::Configure(qw(bundling pass_through));
+
+ &GetOptions(
+ "all" => \$Show_all,
+ "no-color" => sub { %Color = (); },
+ "no-rebase" => sub { $Show_rebase = 0; },
+ "style=i" => \$Style,
+ "sha" => \$With_sha,
+ );
+ if ($Show_all) {
+ unshift(@ARGV, "--all", "HEAD");
+ }
+ &process();
+}
This is a Perl script with a curious style. Your subroutines force the
"funny" parameter semantics to their callers by using prototypes, but
avoid the potential surprises and inconveniences prototypes may cause by
using the &name(...) form when they themselves make subroutine calls,
i.e. not eating their own dog food.
Is it fashionable to make text based tree render these days? How does
this compare with the git-graph in the nearby thread? Can they borrow
from each other?
On Wednesday 2008-04-02 23:49, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Jan Engelhardt [off-list ref] writes:
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=ISO-8859-1
quoted
+# git-??????
Hmmmm...
A git-send-email bug it seems. It does not add any Content-Type header
thereby effectively trashing UTF-8. How wonderful. Explains a many
corrumped patches on LKML (and subsequently, the git history).
This is a Perl script with a curious style. Your subroutines force the
"funny" parameter semantics to their callers by using prototypes, but
avoid the potential surprises and inconveniences prototypes may cause by
using the &name(...) form when they themselves make subroutine calls,
i.e. not eating their own dog food.
Right, I removed that. I would have probably used PHP (perl is touted as
a write-once language), but I could not be sure everyone has _that_
installed. Perl, most people have it.
Is it fashionable to make text based tree render these days?
Same arguments as last time :>
Definitely. Do not assume everyone has an X display ready at any given
time. Also, gitk does a Follows/Precedes scan which would not really be
necessary if you just wanted to have the commit forest.
How does this compare with the git-graph in the nearby thread?
git-forest does have...
- unicode/line-drawing graphics, colors
- display of signs like gitk, that is, ref names like ──[v2.6.25-rc7],
──[remotes/linus/master], ──[original/filtered-branch] etc.
- display detached HEAD and its parents when --all is given
- track in-progress rebase
differences:
- graph does space reduction between vines
- git-forest keeps a vine in its column right now - this way
you can point the mouse on it, scroll down until its end and
keep track of it. (Diagonal art would require adjusting the
mouse position, which is error prone in complex history
like linux.)
Can they borrow from each other?
Mh, I have uptaken some suggestions from the git-graph code: support
for --pretty and --reverse. Did not take very long (and if you look
at the git log for hxtools you can see it's criminally small
patches :-)
--
make boldconfig -- to boldly select what no one has selected before