Junio C Hamano writes:
> It appears that gitk gets wider test coverage only after it is
> pulled into git.git repository. I think it would be a good idea
> for me to pull from you often.
Yes, I agree. I'm happy to send you an email when I have committed
changes to gitk if that will help.
> Recently there was a discussion with binary packaging folks.
> While I do not mind, and actually I would prefer, shipping gitk
> as part of the core GIT, I have never heard about your
> preference. As long as gitk is just a single file (or even a
> handful files in the future) project that does not have a
> filename that overlaps with core GIT, I can continue pulling
> from you and I think the binary packaging folks can produce
> separate git-core and gitk package out of git.git tree without
> problems. However, once you start wanting to have your own
> Makefile and maybe debian/rules file for packaging, for example,
> I suspect the way currently things are set up would break
> miserably. It's all Linus' fault to have merged with your tree
> in the first place ;-).
He did ask me first, and I said he could :). It makes things easier
for me, having gitk in the core git, because it means that I don't
have to worry about making a proper package out of it. I don't see
any reason why gitk would grow to be more than just the script.
I am also thinking of doing a "gitool", somewhat like bk citool, to
make it easier to create commits. I guess we can decide later whether
to make it part of the core git, although it seems more like porcelain
> Anyhow, I have one bug to report. I selected one rev, and then
> said "diff this -> selected" from right-click menu on an
> adjacent one, and I got this:
Thanks for the patch. I have committed that fix plus fixes for some
other bugs that people have reported, and pushed it to
master.kernel.org. Could you do another pull please?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html