On Fri, 15 May 2009, Timur Tabi wrote: > Jakub Narebski wrote: > > > Does this explanation help? > > Yes, it does, but I wish it weren't true. I don't see why gitweb > can't be enhanced to support non-bare repositories without using > symlinks or other hackery. Actually the patch I have sent is not formulated as well as I wish. That is why I didn't send it earlier (and I probably should have marked it as RFC; still it is better than now). Gitweb can deal with non-bare repositories. It is only that because gitweb is not interested in working area, it shows $GIT_DIR (path to repository itself) as name/path to repository. Therefore repo/.git for non-bare repositories, because it is repository itself that matters. > > To avoid the overhead of gitweb scanning all of my repositories for > other respitories, I use a packages_list, which is automatically > recreated whenever I add a new repo. However, I think having to > create a shadow bare repository with a cron job to keep it > more-or-less update is wrong. If you use gitweb only for yourself, take a look at git-instaweb If you provide access for others, i.e. if those repositories shown in gitweb are public repositories, it is much better to use bare repositories for that. -- Jakub Narebski Poland -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html