Petr Baudis wrote: > Dear diary, on Sat, Oct 07, 2006 at 10:38:51PM CEST, I got a letter > where Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> said that... >> Petr Baudis wrote: >> >> > So, I'd like to either have the view links or the filenames in classical >> > link style so that it's apparent they are clickable; I didn't post a >> > patch since I didn't have time/energy to fight for it yet. ;-) >> >> There is a tradeout. Either have easily distinguishable directories and >> files, by using both different color and decoration (underline), or we have >> filename/directory name clearly marked as link. One or the other. >> >> That is why I'd rather have this "redundant" blob/tree link (perhaps in >> separate column). > > As I suggested in another mail, perhaps the whole problem is wrong and > you shouldn't have to dug for trees in a bunch of blobs in the first > place - let's group all the trees at the top, as all the well-behaved > directory listings do. It is a good idea, although we would wither to have to read the directory (tree) listing first into some array, then sort it directories first (contrary to current output while reading, which reduces latency provided that browser can properly display partial contents), or add some option to git-ls-tree command to output tree entries (directories) first, instead of sorting by filename. >> But this is a matter of policy, unless we want to add theme support to >> gitweb ;-)) > > We _do_ have that - you can supply your own gitweb.css. But the defaults > should be sensible. Theme support, as to be able to choose theme, like style selectable from web browser, and for example choosing if the tree/blob links are present or not. Some of which might be done via CSS (display:none). -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git - 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