609288 – gitweb.gentoo.org/${repository}/tree/*: Broken <title>

Bug 609288 - gitweb.gentoo.org/${repository}/tree/*: Broken <title>

Summary: gitweb.gentoo.org/${repository}/tree/*: Broken <title>

Status:	RESOLVED UPSTREAM

Alias:	None

Product:	Gentoo Infrastructure
Classification:	Unclassified
Component:	Git (show other bugs)
Hardware:	All All

Importance:	Normal normal (vote)
Assignee:	Gentoo Infrastructure

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends on:
Blocks:

Reported:	2017-02-13 18:30 UTC by Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
Modified:	2017-04-06 06:22 UTC (History)
CC List:	2 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required:	---

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis 2017-02-13 18:30:33 UTC

Since recent time, gitweb.gentoo.org/${repository}/tree/x/y/z page (for path x/y/z) has <title> starting with z\y\x (i.e. in reversed order and with wrong separator).

Comment 1 Mike Gilbert gentoo-dev

2017-02-13 18:48:03 UTC

Looks like cgit upstream did this intentionally.

https://git.zx2c4.com/cgit/commit/ui-tree.c?id=23f7dadaaba2817c92c42c0a642a3186aa8ef24d

Comment 2 Mike Gilbert gentoo-dev

2017-02-13 18:59:35 UTC

<zx2c4> floppym: its so that you see the file name on the left
<zx2c4> before titles get cut off in tabs

Comment 3 Jason A. Donenfeld gentoo-dev

2017-02-13 20:04:03 UTC

If anybody wants to bikeshed here about this being either ugly or useful, I'll read the responses at the end and either do nothing or revert the upstream change.

Comment 4 Robin Johnson archtester

2017-02-13 20:50:49 UTC

zx2c4:
Thanks, that reasoning makes perfect sense to me; but I agree in some repos it might be counter-intuitive.

arfrever:
I think the new behavior makes sense for gentoo.git; are there repos where you think it would be better to not have?

Comment 5 Michał Górny archtester

2017-04-06 06:22:21 UTC

Due to no new comments, closing as RESO/UPST. If you really believe we have a valid case to diverge from upstream (i.e. reply to Robin's question), feel free to reopen.