Hi !

Gwit was inspired by a post by Solderpunk.

=> 
gemini://gemini.circumlunar.space/~solderpunk/gemlog/low-budget-p2p-content-distribution-with-git.gmi

In this post, Solderpunk states that git has a sort of 'feed' out of the 
box, in the form of the commit history.

I have been updating my gwit site some times. Some of these updates were 
meaningful, ex. adding a new post. Other were just fixing typos, which 
should not appear in a feed, because who cares.

I suggest an optional spec for the git commit message.

- The first line is the title of the commit
- following lines MAY describe the content of the commit
- meaningful changes MAY be written in the commit message, with the same 
syntax as gemtext links. In that case, the path MUST be relative to the 
site root.

For example :

```
This is my commit title

I added a post
=> /blog/post.gmi

And updated my Apropos page
=> /apropos.gmi

```

In this example, the `blog/index.gmi` file has been updated to point to 
the blogroll, but it does not appear in the commit message since it is a 
minor change to the page.


With this format, the client MAY display a feed of meaningful changes : 
they would be the commits that contain at least one line starting with `=>`.

What do you think ?

Hi matograine, again thanks for the proposal and sorry for the delay.

matograine (2024-10-01 21:07:16 +0200) wrote:

> […] I have been updating my gwit site some times. Some of these updates were
> meaningful, ex. adding a new post. Other were just fixing typos, which
> should not appear in a feed, because who cares.
> 
> I suggest an optional spec for the git commit message.
> 
> - The first line is the title of the commit
> - following lines MAY describe the content of the commit
> - meaningful changes MAY be written in the commit message, with the same
> syntax as gemtext links. In that case, the path MUST be relative to the site
> root.
> 
> […] With this format, the client MAY display a feed of meaningful changes : they
> would be the commits that contain at least one line starting with `=>`.
> 
> What do you think ?

I totally see the point in conveying such relevant and useful commit messages
to readers, however I'm not convinced that gwit should impose extra formats
beyond the absolute minimum (i.e. key & conf files, plus introductions &
Well-Known URI as "adaptation" protocols).  Rather than the optional spec, I'd
rather leave history browsing UX up to clients, and it may be way too early in
gwit's life to make such decisions (as usage patterns won't settle in a
while).  So it may make more sense to asess your idea again later on.

Also, gwit's most recent changes in the definition of site history (now based
on gwit site branch head commit ancestry) make it more amenable to be used for
arbitrary Git repos with their own log message standards, which may have an
impact on how they are used.  Again, it's probably better to see how people
will make use of it in the end.

Cheers,

-- 
Ivan Vilata i Balaguer -- https://elvil.net/