On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 16:24:49 +0000, Luke Benes wrote:
In his last email, Mike explains how the gitiles timestamps lead to confusion. This is a serious problem for my use case.
You mean https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/2018-November/081343.html ? This was addressed on Nov 9… *author* names are shown along with *committer* dates in /+log/…?pretty=oneline views (i.e. the default log view). Which timestamps are still confusing?
When I asked for feedback on the IRC dev channel, no one voiced preference for gitiles. I only heard agreement that the URLs and log format are inferior to cgit's.
Was there more to it than these 3 messages from Fri, 15 Mar around 19:00 CET?
18:59:02 < slacka123> what are people's thoughts on gitiles vs cgit? There
are a few issues that annoy me, like the format for
logs and the "^!" symbols that it appends on the end
of the URLs, making copy/paste of commit id's a pain
19:00:09 < slacka123> last message on the dev list was talk of putting cgit
back as default commit bot. Would people like to see
cgit back?
19:09:10 <@erAck> slacka123: the ^! is a tad annoying, but I don't mind
that much, once followed there's the raw commit ID as
well; the log was clearer with cgit
I might have missed part of the exchange, because from the above I'd say
that your conclusion is quite a stretch. Moreover IRC isn't really
great for doing polls, especially on Friday evenings :-)
That said the plan with gitiles was to replace gitweb, not cgit, which
is not hosted nor maintained by TDF anyway. For what it's worth, Björn
asked for the notification change in <20181028095501.GA21770@skorpion>.
--
Guilhem.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature