On 05/18/2011 12:19 PM, Julius Plenz wrote: > Hi, Ferry! > > * Ferry Huberts <[email protected]> [2011-05-15 12:00]: >>> This obviously is a bit more expensive but maybe also a bit more correct? > >> Thought about it a bit more and I think current behaviour (+ the >> packed-refs patch) is good enough. > > It is pretty expensive to cover all the corner cases like packed refs. > Also, the file's modification time might not be the time the last > commit was made. >
I came to the same conclusion, that's why I said that the current behaviour is good enough. I still would like to see the packed-refs fallback patch integrated though :-) > Unless you want to do this expensive look up every time you request a > repository listing (caching aside), your best bet is to write the > commit date to a so-called agefile. You find out the date of the last > commit upon a "git push" (via an update hook) and later retrieve it > (which is a fast operation: simply reading in a small file). > > See here for an example command: > http://hjemli.net/git/cgit/commit/?id=57f6a8bf0de6c112cabc1d8e20ade2698bd886b7 > > Lars: It may be worth starting a FAQ page. What do you think? > I think it'd be better to include (part of) the comment of that commit in the cgitrc.5.txt file! :-) a FAQ is then not needed IMHO > Julius > > _______________________________________________ > cgit mailing list > [email protected] > http://hjemli.net/mailman/listinfo/cgit grtz -- Ferry Huberts _______________________________________________ cgit mailing list [email protected] http://hjemli.net/mailman/listinfo/cgit
