On Wed, Jun 9, 2021, at 2:15 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Greg Hurrell <greg@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:greg%40hurrell.net>> writes: > > > 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`). > > The justification is a bit too weak to convince readers that using > %(HEAD) as the primary sort key to list the branch first in the list > view is *the* best way to solve the "it is unclear which one is the > defaul branch" problem, though. An obvious alternative would be to > show '*' next to such a branch just like "git branch --list" does, > without changing the sort order at all, for example. Yeah, I'm not 100% convinced either. Displaying a "*" indicator would be a straightforward change to `git_heads_body()`, but it would be a break with the visual style of all the other tables in the UI. On the other hand, boosting `HEAD` to the top like the proposed commit does feel a bit arbitrary, given that the other list views in the UI seem mostly to be sorted by recency. (But then again, what `HEAD` is and what it means is quintessentially arbitrary, so maybe this _is_ appropriate.) One thing I do notice is that there is already a `current_head` CSS class applied to the corresponding row, so it would be possible for the gitweb owner to make tha row stand out however they pleased. In short, I am happy to amend the commit message but I fear the rationale for it is a bit weak. If nobody chimes in with a resounding endorsement, I am inclined to probably drop it. > Wasn't your motivating example about tiebreaking between 'main' and > 'master' that always point at the same commit? Yes indeed, that was the original motivation, although after the fix in 7c5045fc180ed09ed4cb5 the tie-breaking by refname already has the equivalent desired effect, albeit coincidentally. Perhaps the sort keys _should_ be `-committerdate`, then `-HEAD`, then `refname` (implicit default); ie. `--sort=-HEAD --sort=-committerdate` (which is the opposite order to what I have in the patch). I would have prepared the patch in that way in the first place if my testing hadn't been confounded by the fact that I was running an older version of Git on the installation where I was trying it out. I feel the argument for using `HEAD` as a tiebreaker is easier to make than the case for using it as a primary sort key, because it is a less invasive change. If there is support for that idea, I'll tweak the patch. Cheers, Greg
