Re: [PATCH 0/2] gitweb: patch view

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Jakub Narebski [off-list ref] wrote:

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:

quoted

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 2:06 AM, Jakub Narebski [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sat, 29 Nov 2008, Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:

quoted

By the way, we still might want to add somehow X-Git-Url and X-Git-Tag
headers later to 'patch' ('patchset') output format.

Yeah, I've been thinking about it, but I couldn't find an easy and
robust way to do it. Plus, should we add them for each patch, or just
once for the whole patchset?

True, that is a complication. Perhaps they should be added only for
single patch?

Although that's rather easy to implement technically, it also creates
some kind of inconsistency.

quoted

Considering I think commitdiff is ugly and long, you can guess my
opinion on format_patch 8-P. 'patchset' might be a good candidate,
considering it's what it does when both hash_parent and hash are
given.

True, 'patchset' might be even better, especially that it hints
what it does for a range a..b (not diff of endpoints, but series
of patches).

Good, I'll rename it.

quoted

We can probably consider deprecating commitdiff(_plain) and have the
following three views:

* commit(_plain): do what commitdiff(_plain) currently does for a single commit

Equivalent of "git show" (and not merely "git cat-file -t commit").

quoted

* diff(_plain): do what commitdiff(_plain) currently does for
parent..hash views, modulo something to be discussed for commit
messages (a shortlog rather maybe?)

Equivalent of "git diff" (or "git diff-tree").

Diffstat, or dirstat might be a good idea. Shortlog... I am not sure.
Diff is about endpoints, and they can be in reverse, too.

There is a problem how to denote endpoints.

Hm? Doesn't parent..hash work? Or are you talking about something else?

quoted

* patch[set?][_plain?]: format-patch style output (maybe with option
for HTML stuff too)

Equivalent of "git format-patch".

Actually the HTML format would be more like "git log -p", so perhaps
that could be handled simply as a version of 'log' view (perhaps via
@extra_options aka 'opt' parameter).

This is starting to get complicated ... I'm not sure how far in this I
can go with this patchset, so for the time being I'll probably just
stick to refining the (plain) patchset feature.

quoted

quoted

What 'patch' view does, what might be not obvious from this description
and from first patch in series, is to show diffs for _series_ of
commits. It means equivalent of "git log -p" or "git whatchanged".
It might make more sense to have plain git-format-patch output, but it
could be useful to have some kind of 'git log -p' HTML output.

So even if 'commitdiff' / 'commitdiff_plain' is fixed, 'patch' whould
still have its place.

Nice to know. Do consider the current version more of a
proof-of-concept that some definitive code.

Ah. O.K. It would be nice if this patch was marked as RFC (well, lack
of signoff hints at this), or as WIP, or as PoC,...

Damn,  I always forget about that.

quoted

quoted

quoted

The second patch exposes it from commitdiff view (obviosly), but also
from shortlog view, when less than 16 patches are begin shown.

Why this nonconfigurable limit?

Because the patch was actually a quick hack for the proof of concept
8-) I wasn't even sure the patch idea would have been worth it (as
opposed to email-izing commitdiff_plain).

Ah.

Well, we might want to impose some limit to avoid generating and sending
patchset for a whole history. Perhaps to page size (100), or some similar
number?

The reason why I chose 16 is that (1) it's a rather commonly used
'small' number across gitweb and (2) it's a rather acceptable
'universal' upper limit for patchsets. There _are_ a few patchbombs
that considerably overtake that limit, but observe that this limit is
not an arbitrary limit on patchsets generated by the 'patchset' view,
but only a condition for which a link is generated from shortlog view.

We may want to have TWO limits here: one is the absolute maximum limit
to the number of patches dumped in a patchset (to prevent DoS attacks
by repeated requests of the whole history), and the other one is the
limit for autogenerated patchset links.

BTW, autogenerated patchset links probably make sense taking some
previous branch name as point of reference. e.g., if I have branch1
within the history of branch2, we probably want some (semi)automatic
way of getting a patchset for branch1..branch2 --of course, we also
want to do a shortlog between them, so that's a more general feature
we should think about.


-- 
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta