Thus said Richard Hipp on Mon, 09 Mar 2015 23:52:16 -0400: > Oh, it does. Try a graph with "n=all" and you'll see. When you start > to get a lot of rails, and the graph gets all scrunched together, then > (2) is clearly better. The question is should we go with (2) always, > or use (1) for graphs that have more space and save (2) for scrunched > up graphs.
I think if it takes a large graph (not sure how to determine where the line is for large) for it to make a difference, then I still prefer (1), switching to (2) when scrunched; again for both aesthetic reasons and also because it also helps represent the separation in time. How many projects in Fossil will have enough rails to warrant a ``scrunched view'' rail rendering? How much code reduction is there in going to just (2)? Andy -- TAI64 timestamp: 4000000054ff5906 _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
