On Jun 3, 2018, at 7:28 PM, Richard Hipp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So, if anybody sees any last minute tidying up that we need to do to
> the website in anticipation of a huge influx of first-time visitors,
> please speak up. Quickly.
There are several nits to pick on the Fossil vs. Git page:
http://fossil-scm.org/index.html/doc/trunk/www/fossil-v-git.wiki
I’ve just checked in a few minor fixes to it.
One remaining issue that has been noticed before and is still outstanding is
that in style.css, the rules for h2 and h3 have their sizes swapped, so that
the subordinate header is rendered in a larger font. I believe the simplest
fix is that this:
.content h2 {
font-size: 1.05em;
font-weight: bold;
}
should be:
.content h3 {
font-size: 1.05em;
}
That is, we’ve got a simple typo here, h2 -> h3.
There is no need to bold the font explicitly, as that’s the default in all
sensible browsers, but it’s harmless to include it. If you feel it’s necessary
to keep it, it should probably be done in h1 as well for consistency.
Another issue, which is much bigger, is that because the section 3 points
expand on the summary table, it makes much the same points repeatedly.
Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.7 could be merged.
Additionally, I think this document should explicitly ask the question, “Does
your project look more like that of the Linux kernel, or more like that of
SQLite?” The comment about the low-friction path addresses this somewhat, but
I think the focus should be more on these design decisions’ impact on the
end-user experience than on the history that lead to the decisions.
I like the summary table, and I like the parallel to it in section 3, so maybe
the simplest fix is to reorder these points to group them, then make these
three sections 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.3, with the superordinate section 3.3
covering the common matters.
That in turn would require an h4 level, not something that is currently defined
in style.css, but the default stylesheets should include not only that, but
also h5.
Section 3.6 should mention git-worktree as a partial solution to this relative
weakness of Git, but also discuss its unfortunate consequences and remaining
weaknesses:
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg25686.html
Section 4.1 repeats much of what’s in section 3. I think you could drop the
explanatory paragraph below the first three bold bullet points, as they now
need no explanation.
I think timeline.rss is worth its own bullet point in section 4.1. It’s not
strictly part of Fossil UI; that would be /timeline.
In section 4.2, you should mention narrow and shallow clones. Git has them,
Fossil doesn’t.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
