ok :thumbsdown: on the changes on this file actually, a commit does not belong to a branch, or rather could belong to several (if branches are merged) making it messy imho.
I had a different understanding of your issue from IRC, I thought you were referring to the drop-down of branches on the header.
In addition to my comment, the PR conflicts :)
On the changes made in that file. I came across that concept here. The problem that was occurring was that the commits page didn't receive any data about which branch it was in, so it didn't have enough data to go to that branch from there.
About the issue, if it's not clear yet: http://img.susepaste.org/82866851
look at the left bottom - the link the browser shows. At that time, the mouse on the commits tab.
Hm, I see what you mean, but I still do not like the fix, a commit is identified by its hash there is no need to provide a branch.
I would be ok with providing the branch as an argument so /c/asdasda?branchname=foo and reuse that info
/c/asdasda?branchname=foo
rebased
Would be cool to add a small test for this
Rather than checking the code/diff, maybe we should check that the link to commits is rightly set?
2 new commits added
I was wondering about this abort, since the branch is not actually something that is necessary, maybe we can just set it to None and not return a 404, what do you think?
None
it will be a little more "friendly" to the user (probably), if it's not aborted.
wait, do not merge.
Hm, isn't that the default?
4 new commits added
Looks good to me
Pull-Request has been merged by pingou