[Bug Infrastructure/29769] New: Feature proposal: cgit access rather than solely gitweb

[Bug Infrastructure/29769] New: Feature proposal: cgit access rather than solely gitweb

[arsen at aarsen dot me]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29769

            Bug ID: 29769
           Summary: Feature proposal: cgit access rather than solely
                    gitweb
           Product: sourceware
           Version: unspecified
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P2
         Component: Infrastructure
          Assignee: overseers at sourceware dot org
          Reporter: arsen at aarsen dot me
  Target Milestone: ---

$summary

cgit is nice and fast, and shouldn't cost us more.  We can probably provide a
compatibility redirect by writing a simple script that takes gitweb-style query
strings and translates them into a 301 to the appropriate cgit URL.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug Infrastructure/29769] Feature proposal: cgit access rather than solely gitweb

[mark at klomp dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29769

Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|overseers at sourceware dot org    |mark at klomp dot org
                 CC|                            |mark at klomp dot org

--- Comment #1 from Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> ---
I have been playing with cgit already and I really like it.
It is indeed really fast, so cpu shouldn't be a problem.

But it does take some diskspace, my local cgit setup with various sourceware
mirrors has a cgit cache of ~400MB. https://code.wildebeest.org/git/mirror/ But
we have ~20G available, so that should not be a problem.

I have been looking at "overlaying" /cgit/ over /git/ and have URL rewriting
"do the right thing", but it looks really hairy:
https://www.clearchain.com/blog/posts/cgit-upgrade-gitweb-retired

So maybe the best thing to do first is just have /cgit/ next to /git/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug Infrastructure/29769] Feature proposal: cgit access rather than solely gitweb

[mark at klomp dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29769

Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Assignee|mark at klomp dot org              |overseers at sourceware dot org

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug Infrastructure/29769] Feature proposal: cgit access rather than solely gitweb

[arsen at aarsen dot me]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29769

--- Comment #4 from Arsen Arsenović <arsen at aarsen dot me> ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #3)
> ScriptAliasMatch \
>                  "(?x)^/git/(.*/(HEAD | \
>                   info/refs | \
>                   objects/(info/[^/]+ | \
>                   [0-9a-f]{2}/[0-9a-f]{38} | \
>                   pack/pack-[0-9a-f]{40}\.(pack|idx)) | \
>                   git-(upload|receive)-pack))$" \
>      /usr/libexec/git-core/git-http-backend/$1
Ah, yes, that alias is much more specific than what I thought that
git-http-backend needs, so my concerns about it conflicting with cgit are void.

The aforementioned Perl script needs some code review (help appreciated!) but
covers all gitweb actions AFAICT, and should be easier to extend and less prone
to error due to unspecified query parameter order.  Some actions are simplified
or ignore query parameters, or are just unmappable, so instead choose to
redirect to the CGit project summary page instead.

Code: https://git.sr.ht/~arsen/cgitweb/tree/master/item/cgitweb.perl

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug Infrastructure/29769] Feature proposal: cgit access rather than solely gitweb

[fche at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29769

Frank Ch. Eigler <fche at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |fche at redhat dot com

--- Comment #5 from Frank Ch. Eigler <fche at redhat dot com> ---
I agree that /cgit/ as a sibling makes more sense than shoehorning all the
status quo via redirects.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug Infrastructure/29769] Feature proposal: cgit access rather than solely gitweb

[mark at klomp dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29769

--- Comment #6 from Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> ---
As a first step there is now:

https://cygwin.com/cgit/
https://gcc.gnu.org/cgit/
https://sourceware.org/cgit/

The cygwin and sourceware repos are currently disambiguated through an explicit
project-list because they have overlapping scan-paths. It would be nice to
separate them more explicitly by using separate git repo root dirs.

It would also be nice to actually use Arsen's script to do redirects. cgit is
nicer
looking, has easier to understand URLs and is a bit faster.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug Infrastructure/29769] Feature proposal: cgit access rather than solely gitweb

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29769

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #7 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #6)
> The cygwin and sourceware repos are currently disambiguated through an
> explicit project-list because they have overlapping scan-paths. It would be
> nice to separate them more explicitly by using separate git repo root dirs.

The issue with seperating them (unless symbolic link works there) is that the
cygwin-newlib repo is for both of them.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug Infrastructure/29769] Feature proposal: cgit access rather than solely gitweb

[arsen at aarsen dot me]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29769

--- Comment #8 from Arsen Arsenović <arsen at aarsen dot me> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #6)
> > The cygwin and sourceware repos are currently disambiguated through an
> > explicit project-list because they have overlapping scan-paths. It would be
> > nice to separate them more explicitly by using separate git repo root dirs.
> 
> The issue with seperating them (unless symbolic link works there) is that
> the cygwin-newlib repo is for both of them.

those should work, my cgit instance also uses symlinks to control "exposure".

Mark: thanks!  this is quite nice :)

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug Infrastructure/29769] Feature proposal: cgit access rather than solely gitweb

[mark at klomp dot org]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29769

--- Comment #9 from Mark Wielaard <mark at klomp dot org> ---
(In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #7)
> (In reply to Mark Wielaard from comment #6)
> > The cygwin and sourceware repos are currently disambiguated through an
> > explicit project-list because they have overlapping scan-paths. It would be
> > nice to separate them more explicitly by using separate git repo root dirs.
> 
> The issue with seperating them (unless symbolic link works there) is that
> the cygwin-newlib repo is for both of them.

Thanks. Yes, symbolic links do work, that is actually how the cygwin related
repos were kept under sourceware/git when they were (also) on the new cygwin
domain. Corinna also said she liked the historic git repos kept/shared between
sourceware/cygwin.

So I updated the list to keep all repos visible under /cgit/ that were visible
under /git/ including cygwin-htdocs.git, newlib-cygwin.git, newlib-htdocs.git
and the repos under /cygwin-apps/ (note that is only those that were
historically there, https://cygwin.com/cgit/cygwin-apps/ lists a few more now)

See https://sourceware.org/cgit/ and https://cygwin.com/cgit/

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug Infrastructure/29769] Feature proposal: cgit access rather than solely gitweb

[fche at redhat dot com]

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29769

Frank Ch. Eigler <fche at redhat dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |RESOLVED
         Resolution|---                         |FIXED

--- Comment #10 from Frank Ch. Eigler <fche at redhat dot com> ---
sourceware.org/cgit is installed and operating

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.