On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Mads Kiilerich <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/07/2015 08:50 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Mads Kiilerich <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 03/04/2015 10:06 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote: >>>> >>>> # HG changeset patch >>>> # User Thomas De Schampheleire <[email protected]> >>>> # Date 1425503195 -3600 >>>> # Wed Mar 04 22:06:35 2015 +0100 >>>> # Node ID ed66618ffb23900e1cf56add90f54801e455a0eb >>>> # Parent 297d798bd5b22ea562d0813bed7e5eb6bc646c1b >>>> changelog: repeat pager links on top of changelog >>>> >>>> In particular since the default number of entries in the changelog has >>>> been >>>> increased to 100, having the pager links both above and below the >>>> changelog >>>> is more user-friendly. >>> >>> >>> When will the user ever be looking at the top of a multi-page listing of >>> changesets and without seeing the end of the current page know that he >>> has >>> to navigate to the next one ... or 4 pages forward? >> >> For example because he is trying to find something around a given >> revision number, and uses the first few entries as a key. Based on >> that he can guess how many pages to advance. > > > Mercurial revision numbers are local. Git doesn't really have revision > numbers. Kallithea can be configured to show the server's local revision > numbers but I think these revision numbers are misleading and barely useful. > > Please consider your example in more details: How did the user end up with a > revision number? Was it the right one - and by which definition? Wouldn't it > be better to not show the revision number and thus prevent the user from > being hit by these wrong expectations?
Fair enough, replace 'revision number' with 'date' in my scenario.. _______________________________________________ kallithea-general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.sfconservancy.org/mailman/listinfo/kallithea-general
