On Thu, Dec 8, 2016, at 21:18, John Keeping wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2016 at 04:06:01PM +0100, Lukasz Janyst wrote: > In relation to the first patch specifically, I posted a more > comprehensive series a couple of months ago following a request on the > list, the thread starts here: > > https://lists.zx2c4.com/pipermail/cgit/2016-September/003289.html > > Does that series work for your use case? I think your patch will break > rendering for genuine source code and that remains a key use case for > CGit.
I checked the default syntax-highlighting.py and it still works fine with my patches because it inserts all the tags it needs. The ones that I removed were redundant. I did not check the other highlighter. I have skimmed through your patches. I think it would work for my use case. I especially like the idea of applying filters to binary blobs. However, it seems to be pretty complicated. I can handle most of the use cases I can think of with regular source filters provided that the two patches to the C code are applied and I would be able to handle all of them if I could apply source filters to binary blobs. Lukasz _______________________________________________ CGit mailing list [email protected] https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/cgit
