Santi Béjar wrote:
It looks like the html and man branches of git.git.
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=shortlog;h=html http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=shortlog;h=man
They are automatically generated when Junio pushes the branches to kernel.org. Afterwards you can do a "make quick-install-html" and install the preformated html pages from these branches. They are generated with the dodoc.sh script from the todo branch in git.git (look inside for instructions):
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git;a=blob_plain;f=dodoc.sh;hb=todo
This script only generates the html / man branches, it doesn't help find the right version for a given git version, right?
The differences are:
- the html / man branches have a strictly linear history and are centrally maintained. This solves the distribution issue for end users. But while developping the compiler, the developers may need to go back in the history of their own development (e.g. when the current compiler doesn't work anymore), and the suspected usefulness of being able to see and track differences in the generated code also isn't available for a strictly central approach.
- the script above is only for creating and committing the derived files, in a hook similar to the one I suggested in build/.git/hooks/commit-msg; this is the "cd build; git commit -m 'generated files for source repository commit
`git rev-parse HEAD`'" part; the more interesting part comes from
automatically finding the right commit in the generated branches for a given source commit. This is what I intend to solve with the "intergit-find-matching-commit-in" script. Said in a simpler way: the git html / man branches do not offer automatically resolvable linking.
Christian.