review

[git.ikiwiki.info.git] / doc / todo / headless_git_branches.mdwn

diff --git a/doc/todo/headless_git_branches.mdwn b/doc/todo/headless_git_branches.mdwn
index 4dbbc1cc811aae40184df3769c75cdf60566b88e..bedf21d0ca5c07d68c11e8eb566957224b5d3d1e 100644 (file)
--- a/doc/todo/headless_git_branches.mdwn
+++ b/doc/todo/headless_git_branches.mdwn
@@ -6,7 +6,9 @@ Ikiwiki should really survive being asked to work with a git branch that has no
     git clone barerepo.git srcdir
     ikiwiki --rcs=git srcdir destdir
 
     git clone barerepo.git srcdir
     ikiwiki --rcs=git srcdir destdir
 

-I've fixed this initial construction case, and, based on my testing, I've also fixed the post-update executing on a new master, and ikiwiki.cgi executing on a non-existent master cases.
+I've fixed this initial construction case, and, based on my testing, I've
+also fixed the post-update executing on a new master, and ikiwiki.cgi
+executing on a non-existent master cases.

 
 Please commit so my users stop whining at me about having clean branches to push to, the big babies.
 
 
 Please commit so my users stop whining at me about having clean branches to push to, the big babies.
 


@@ -63,15 +65,18 @@ It's still extra work) to a very hot code path that is run to eg,
 update recentchanges after every change. 
 
 Seems not ideal to do extra work every time to handle a case
 update recentchanges after every change. 
 
 Seems not ideal to do extra work every time to handle a case

-that will liternally happen a maximum of once in the entire lifecycle of a
+that will literally happen a maximum of once in the entire lifecycle of a

 wiki (and zero times more typically, since the setup automator puts in a
 .gitignore file that works around this problem).
 
 So as to not just say "no" ... what if it always tried to run git log,
 wiki (and zero times more typically, since the setup automator puts in a
 .gitignore file that works around this problem).
 
 So as to not just say "no" ... what if it always tried to run git log,

-and if it failed (or returned no parsed lines, then it could look 
-at git show-ref to desice whether to throw an error or not.
+and if it failed (or returned no parsed lines), then it could look 
+at git show-ref to deduce whether to throw an error or not.

 --[[Joey]] 
 
 --[[Joey]] 
 

+> Ah, but then git-log would still complain "bad revision 'HEAD'"
+> --[[Joey]] 
+

 <pre>
 @@ -474,7 +478,10 @@ sub rcs_update () {
        # Update working directory.
 <pre>
 @@ -474,7 +478,10 @@ sub rcs_update () {
        # Update working directory.


@@ -84,6 +89,7 @@ at git show-ref to desice whether to throw an error or not.
 +              }
        }
  }
 +              }
        }
  }

+

 </pre>
 
 Same concern here about extra work. Code path is nearly as hot, being
 </pre>
 
 Same concern here about extra work. Code path is nearly as hot, being