Jakub Narebski venit, vidit, dixit 02.05.2010 22:14: > Michael J Gruber <git@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I was wondering whether it would make sense to ship GitBrowser.js with >> Git and how much it would take to do so. >> >> My personal answer to the 1st Q is Yes: instaweb as well as simple >> gitweb installs would benefit from a graphical DAG viewer. >> >> About the required effort I have no clue: I find it difficult to see >> through which repo contains current gitweb, current repo.or.cz mods, and >> especially the GitBrowser integration bits. Maybe we could ship the >> integration bits without the actual GitBrowser if that is more feasible? > > The integration parts are actually present in gitweb, I think. It is > a matter of configuration to enable 'graphiclog' link like in > http://repo.or.cz > > GitBrowser.js is not, I think, the best solution for having graphical > history in gitweb, but would do... After having a more thorough look at it I agree... We don't want to inflate $GIT_DIR/gitweb more than necessary. But what are the alternatives? Something svg/canvas would be nice, I guess. The ruby frontends with graphlog don't convince me at all (neither performance-wise nor layout-wise). Michael -- 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