Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

On Fri 24 Nov 2017 7:25 PM, sky5w...@gmail.com wrote: > Wow, #5 is super clean and easy on the eyes! > And #12 is interesting if I can see it with Per-Item Time Format = (off)? > > Thanks for the changes! #5 is nice, and especially with the easy option to switch back to advanced. Perhaps the

Re: [fossil-users] fossil-users Digest, Vol 118, Issue 38

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 7:19 PM, wrote: > > Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 19:19:27 -0500 > From: Richard Hipp > To: "Fossil SCM user's discussion" > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG Bloat? > Message-ID:

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 6:43 PM, wrote: > > Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 15:25:37 -0700 > From: Warren Young > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG ideas > > On Nov 21, 2017, at 2:09 PM, Ron W wrote: > > > > While I

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

Wow, #5 is super clean and easy on the eyes! And #12 is interesting if I can see it with Per-Item Time Format = (off)? Thanks for the changes! On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 7:12 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 11/24/17, Zakero wrote: > > > > tldr; This new change of

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG Bloat?

On 11/24/17, Ron W wrote: > > Your wiki page summary and replies in this discussion imply you would > implement interoperability with git by having fossil store git artifacts. I don't know yet if it would be better to store Git artifacts natively, or to translate them into

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

On 11/24/17, Zakero wrote: > > tldr; This new change of the timeline makes it harder to find useful links. > There is now a per-repository configuration option under Setup/Timeline that lets you choose which timeline format you prefer. https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/ is

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG Bloat?

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 7:00 AM, wrote: > > Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 05:55:51 -0500 > From: Richard Hipp > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG Bloat? > > On 11/24/17, Johan Kuuse wrote: > > I agree on that we would give

Re: [fossil-users] fossil-users Digest, Vol 118, Issue 35

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 10:17 AM, wrote: > > Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2017 09:35:55 -0500 > From: Richard Hipp > Subject: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes > > Which is better? > > A:

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

Looking at the commit message data, it has a 4 types of information: - The check-in link - The commit message - Leaf, Closed-Leaf - Detail (user, tags) For me, the most important piece of information is the check-in link. Now, l have to search for the link because it is no longer in a consistent

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 06:52:41PM +, Jacob MacDonald wrote: > Seems like I'm in the minority, but I prefer the A version. I tend to like > compact UIs and having all the relevant information close together and the > commit hash prominently displayed is nice. Same for me. With B

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

Seems like I'm in the minority, but I prefer the A version. I tend to like compact UIs and having all the relevant information close together and the commit hash prominently displayed is nice. On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 12:32 PM David Mason wrote: > I like the B cases... in fact

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

I like the B cases... in fact I'd indent the details a bit so that the comments are easier to find visually. On 24 November 2017 at 11:53, wrote: > I understand the need for links, but do users really need truncated hashes > for every line? > Can the link be applied more

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

I understand the need for links, but do users really need truncated hashes for every line? Can the link be applied more subtly? Can there be a similar "quiet" setting for the Timeline like *Per-Item Time Format = (off) *to conserve space? My commits prepend a simple timestamp in the comment and

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

On 11/24/17, bch wrote: >> >> (1) The "details" section is shown on a separate line below the >> check-in comment. >> (2) The "details" are in the same font-color as the comment-text >> but have a slightly reduced font size. >> > > I don’t see that reflected on the

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 8:12 AM Richard Hipp wrote: > On 11/24/17, Richard Hipp wrote: > > On 11/24/17, Andy Bradford wrote: > >> I still miss the Leaf, which I do find useful. > > > > Ugh. I didn't intend to omit the "Leaf" and

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG Bloat?

On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 15:25:25 +0100, Richard Hipp wrote: On 11/24/17, Johan Kuuse wrote: I think 'push' and 'pull' seems fair enough. But what about 'rebase' and 'submodule'? To what level should the Fossil-NG client support Git features not present in Fossil?

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

On 11/24/17, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 11/24/17, Andy Bradford wrote: >> I still miss the Leaf, which I do find useful. > > Ugh. I didn't intend to omit the "Leaf" and "Closed-Leaf" marks, > though I did want to move them to the end, rather than before

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

On 11/24/17, Andy Bradford wrote: > I still miss the Leaf, which I do find useful. Ugh. I didn't intend to omit the "Leaf" and "Closed-Leaf" marks, though I did want to move them to the end, rather than before the check-in comment. The omission of that information is

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

On 11/24/17, Andy Bradford wrote: > Thus said Richard Hipp on Fri, 24 Nov 2017 09:35:55 -0500: > >> The change here is to emphasis the check-in comment and de-emphasize >> the links to the check-in details and other information. > > Hopefully this change is simply

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

Thus said Richard Hipp on Fri, 24 Nov 2017 10:13:22 -0500: > Alternative CSS that causes the "details" to appears on a separate > line from the comment: > > A: https://sqlite.org/src/timeline > B: https://sqlite.org/b/timeline I think it looks slightly cleaner with the ``details''

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

Thus said Richard Hipp on Fri, 24 Nov 2017 09:35:55 -0500: > The change here is to emphasis the check-in comment and de-emphasize > the links to the check-in details and other information. Hopefully this change is simply accomplished with some CSS. That way those who prefer their UI to

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

Thus said Richard Hipp on Fri, 24 Nov 2017 09:35:55 -0500: > Which is better? > > A: https://www.fossil-scm.org/a/timeline > B: https://www.fossil-scm.org/b/timeline I prefer A. I don't like muted colors for text. I prefer seeing text than to have to look for text that begins to

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

Am 24.11.17 um 16:17 schrieb Richard Hipp: > If the entire check-in comment is a hyperlink, that would make it > difficult to have hyperlinks embedded within the check-in comment. I totally agree. So far I only use ticket IDs that are automatically linked but this is very important to me. If the

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

On 11/24/17, j. van den hoff wrote: > > personally, I rather like the tidiness of the timeline graph available in > mercurial via `hg serve' ... so one might think about doing something similar > (remove hash display and link the commit message itself to the 'chekin' >

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

On 11/24/17, Richard Hipp wrote: > Which is better? > > A: https://www.fossil-scm.org/a/timeline > B: https://www.fossil-scm.org/b/timeline > Alternative CSS that causes the "details" to appears on a separate line from the comment: A: https://sqlite.org/src/timeline

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

On Fri, 24 Nov 2017 15:35:55 +0100, Richard Hipp wrote: Which is better? A: https://www.fossil-scm.org/a/timeline B: https://www.fossil-scm.org/b/timeline Also: A: https://www.fossil-scm.org/a/finfo?name=src/search.c B:

Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

Hi, I'd like to object the default use of low-contrast type in professional software :) I use displays that are adjusted for low eye strain by reducing contrast and brightness. Having type and typography do the same thing again has the opposite effect and legibility starts to suffer. Regards,

[fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes

Which is better? A: https://www.fossil-scm.org/a/timeline B: https://www.fossil-scm.org/b/timeline Also: A: https://www.fossil-scm.org/a/finfo?name=src/search.c B: https://www.fossil-scm.org/b/finfo?name=src/search.c Surf about from any of the links above for additional views. The

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG Bloat?

On 11/24/17, Johan Kuuse wrote: > > I think 'push' and 'pull' seems fair enough. > But what about 'rebase' and 'submodule'? > To what level should the Fossil-NG client support Git features not > present in Fossil? Zero. > > If not supported, wouldn't there be a risk of users just

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG Bloat?

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 11:55 AM, Richard Hipp wrote: > > On 11/24/17, Johan Kuuse wrote: > > I agree on that we would give up Fossil semantics. > > I have no intent to "give up" or change the semantics of Fossil, and I > see no reason why enabling Fossil to push

Re: [fossil-users] Clone a repo served by a winsrv service

Hello, Le 24/11/2017 08:16, Stephan Beal a écrit : > On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Stéphane Aulery wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Yet an error form winsrv feature. >> >> I try to clone a new repo and get this error : >> >> $ fossil clone -v http://fossil/eulalia/ eulalia.fossil

Re: [fossil-users] Fossil-NG Bloat?

On 11/24/17, Johan Kuuse wrote: > I agree on that we would give up Fossil semantics. I have no intent to "give up" or change the semantics of Fossil, and I see no reason why enabling Fossil to push and pull from Git repositories would require this. Adding the ability to interact