On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 11:14:40PM +0200, Greg Hurrell wrote: > Prior to this commit, the "heads" section on a gitweb summary page would > list the heads in `-committerdate` order (ie. the most recently-modified > ones at the top), tie-breaking equal-dated refs using the implicit > `refname` sort fallback. > > This commit adds another `--sort` parameter to the `git for-each-ref` > invocation in `git_get_heads_list()`, ensuring that the `HEAD` ref > always ends up getting sorted to the top, seeing as it is typically the > "primary" line of development in some sense. > > This seems to be a useful change, because I can't see anywhere else in > the gitweb UI where we actually indicate to the user what the "default" > branch is (ie. what they'll checkout if they run `git clone`). Your use of "seems" in the final paragraph is a leftover from the earlier commit message, and I think weakens your message. It's OK to assert that it really _is_ a useful change, I would say. :) This patch looks good to me overall. In addition to dropping the RFC tag, you're more likely to get attention by having a subject line without "Re:" in it (so people realize it's a patch to look at, and not just a continuation of the discussion). > On Tue, Jun 8, 2021, at 11:02 AM, Greg Hurrell wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 8, 2021, at 10:34 AM, Jeff King wrote: > > > 1. break ties by name, like: > > > > > > git for-each-ref --sort=refname --sort=-committerdate > > > > > > 2. emphasize the HEAD branch, even if it isn't the newest: > > > > > > git for-each-ref --sort=refname --sort=-committerdate --sort=-HEAD > > I was wracking my brains over this one trying to figure out why > it wasn't already doing the right thing based on what I see in > ref-filter.c. It sure looks like the `--sort=refname` fallback should > be automatic, but I wasn't seeing it happen in my gitweb instance. > > Turns out there was a bug that you fixed in 7c5045fc180ed09ed4cb5 which > made it in soon after v2.20.4 fixing a problem. I was seeing different > behavior on gitweb running on Amazon Linux AMI, because that's still > using Git v2.18.5. Heh, OK. I almost suggested "gee, wouldn't it be nice if we used the refname as a fallback tie-breaker by default". You'd think I would either remember such fixes, or at least bother to look at the code. :) > So, that means "1" isn't necessary. "2" is the only possibly interesting > bit. I've reworded the commit text accordingly, still labeled as "RFC" > to see if there is any consensus on this being a good idea or not. Yep, I agree on all counts. In my experience gitweb doesn't tend to get a lot of interest from reviewers, and I consider it mostly in maintenance mode these days. So be prepared for silence. In that case, I'd give it a few days and repost the patch to see if Junio is interested in picking it up. -Peff
