From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: whydoubt at gmail.com (Jeffrey Smith) Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 19:57:58 -0500 Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/4] Add ui-blame In-Reply-To: References: <20170608021810.12964-1-whydoubt@gmail.com> <20170722120227.GI1600@john.keeping.me.uk> Message-ID: I am working at rebasing my changes onto git 2.14-rc1 and integrating some of the suggestions made thus far. Blame is certainly a more expensive operation, and adding a flag for it makes a lot of sense. I will look into it further. - Jeff On Aug 4, 2017 7:23 PM, "Daniel Campbell" wrote: > On 07/22/2017 05:02 AM, John Keeping wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 09:18:06PM -0500, Jeff Smith wrote: > >> [snip] > > > > I have a general question, possible more for any administrators of CGit > > sites who happen to see this: Should we offer a configuration switch to > > disable the blame function? Blame is a comparatively expensive > > operation compared to everything else we do to display a page, so is > > there a desire to disable this feature for sites worried about resource > > usage? > > > > [snip] > > > > Hi John, > > The option would be great to have, especially for some like me who run > cgit on a Raspberry Pi or another comparatively weaker device. > Personally I don't mind it being a little slower in order to use `git > blame`, but if disabling it improves speed, it seems smart to put it > behind an option so cgit admins can make the right decision for their > environments. > > ~Daniel > > > > _______________________________________________ > CGit mailing list > CGit at lists.zx2c4.com > https://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/cgit > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: