Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 05/11] gitweb: git_split_heads_body function.

From: Jakub Narebski <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:21:53 +0100

Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Jakub Narebski <[email-masked]> wrote:

>> The problems with nesting is those pesky remotes with only single
>> tracked branch to them; they are I think quote common... well, unless
>> you do one-shot pull, directly into local branch.
> 
> My idea with this would be to only create a group if it has at least
> N > 1 (probably N=2) entries.

A bit of complication is that you would have then series of
'uncategorized' (not in any subsection) entries / remote-tracking
branches.

>> All that said, splitting 'remotes' section is difficult; using first
>> dirname as section is probably easiest, and good enough in most cases.
>> That is why I think this part should be put into separate series, to
>> not hinder rest of patches.
> 
> Yes, I will resend the 'remote_heads' feature as a new (reduced)
> patchset, then add (separate patchset) grouping for ref lists, and
> then add (yet another patchset) detached head.

That is I think a good idea.

P.S. I think that sending this patch series for review, even if it was
not perfect was a very good idea... well, perhaps some patches could
be marked as RFC.

It is hard work to prepare good patches, then wait for review, then
wait a bit that there is no further review, working on the patches,
resend and wait for review, or for Ack and merge-in... Keep up good
work.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland