Re: [Gitstat-devel] [Fwd: Re: Your changes to style.css]

[Paul V. <pau...@gm...>]

Hi,

이정승 wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I applied Paul's patch on CELF server.
> It looks pretty good. but, I modified it a bit.
> $GSTAT[GIT_TREE_DESC] has long words, generally. so it is too long to
> use on title.
> In my opinion, title name 'Git statistics + $GSTAT[GIT_PROJECT_NAME]'
> would it be ok.
> How do u think about it?

Yes, that looks better. While testing I also had "Linus' kernel tree" in there 
and it introduced some line wrapping. The html/css code does take care of that 
but I think your solution is better although I would add the "2.6" to it.

As said before, we probably need a config page (for the administrator) to be 
able to added these kind of fields. It's much easier to work with (I think) and 
we are able to introduce some checking (lengths of strings and such) immediately.

> 
> and, I ran Installation page.
> It is easy to make DB and DB schema. and It gave many informaton to
> gitstat administrator.
> If it is written all, It would be helpfulness.
> 

The main difference is of course that you now need a gstat_rw/config directory 
that's owned by the account that runs the webserver. I don't think that's an issue.

> Thanks,
> 

Two other things about the references to gitstat:

1. The grey 'Monitor gitstat' (above the join link). We should probably turn 
this into "Monitor $GSTAT[GIT_PROJECT_NAME]" or get rid off it.
2. The text "What is Gitstat". This should be replaced by a small piece of 
information related to the project, not gitstat.

The only pages that should reference gitstat a lot would be a gitstat page for 
gitstat itself :-).

And on a side-note, any reason you didn't apply the latest header.php and 
include/lib.php changes? I changed the cut_str function to do an exact cutoff 
and introduced some links for cut off strings when you hover over them (subject 
and author in the changelog). The current page on the CELF server shows the 
reason I've changed it (look for example at the author "Jeremy Kerr .j..

I must say that we still have an issue with the top author per release. I'm 
still working on that (slowly). I have a feeling that it's either a git-issue or 
the way we read/store some of the entries. It's not the calculation.

Cheers,

Paul.