On Sat, 2008-12-13 at 14:31 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Jakub Narebski <jnareb@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Matt McCutchen <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > CC-ed Petr Baudis, author of forks support in gitweb. > > > >> git_get_projects_list excludes forks in order to unclutter the main > >> project list, but this caused the strict_export check, which also relies > >> on git_get_project_list, to incorrectly fail for forks. This patch adds > >> an argument so git_get_projects_list knows when it is being called for a > >> strict_export check (as opposed to a user-visible project list) and > >> doesn't exclude the forks. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Matt McCutchen <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Looks good for me. > > That sounds like a broken API to me. > > At least, please have the decency to not call the extra parameter "for > strict export". I would understand it if the extra parameter is called > "toplevel_only" (or its negation, "include_forks"). > > IOW, don't name a parameter after the name of one caller that happens to > want an unspecified special semantics, without saying what that special > semantics is. Instead, name it after the special semantics that the > argument triggers. I disagree. The parameter is really "include forks (if there is such a concept under the current config)", and with my second patch, it becomes "include hidden projects" too. That's really unwieldy. In my view, the parameter makes the distinction between generating a filtered list for user consumption and a list of everything for a strict_export check. The particular semantics it activates may evolve as gitweb does (case in point: my second patch). The current semantics can be described in a comment on git_get_projects_list. Granted, there may be a better name for the parameter than $for_strict_export. How about $include_all? -- Matt -- 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
