How about one for leaves and the other for non-leaves? The circles look really nice but, as you say, don't add any new info in their current role.
----- stephan (Sent from a mobile device, possibly from bed. Please excuse brevity, typos, and top-posting.) On Mar 18, 2015 9:56 PM, "Richard Hipp" <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > On 3/18/15, Kees Nuyt <k.n...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:53:14 -0400, you wrote: > >>Please provide feedback. > > > > Looks great! > > > > They do look good, don't they. > > However, after living with them for a few hours, I now realize that > the circles do not provide any new information. I can already clearly > see which nodes are merges which are not from the inbound merge > arrows. Having some nodes as circles and others as squares merely > complicates the display. It provides redundant and surplus > information that detracts from the important stuff. So my current > thinking that the use of circles for non-merge nodes and squares for > merge-nodes will not make it to trunk. But the idea of using circles > to distinguish some nodes from others is appealing. We merely have to > figure out what the circles should represent. > > Maybe circles should be used in all cases? Or maybe the use of > circles versus squares should be a skin-selectable option? > > -- > D. Richard Hipp > d...@sqlite.org > _______________________________________________ > fossil-dev mailing list > fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev >
_______________________________________________ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
