Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Richard Hipp wrote: > On 12/5/17, Reimer Behrends wrote: > > Richard Hipp wrote: > >> Which is better? > >> > >>A: https://www.fossil-scm.org/a/timeline > >>B: https://www.fossil-scm.org/b/timeline > > > > I don't see much of a difference, > > Thanks for looking. But the original question is old, and the display is > moved on. [...] Please keep a close eye on the Fossil website and report any usability > issues. > None of the 4 current views have the author/branch/hash links below the message in smaller and slightly washed out color as seen at one point on the A/B testing I believe. They are all at the far end-right, and when using full screen windows on a large monitor, this forces the gaze to move horizontally too much from left to right IMHO. If there was 1 "modern" view (i.e. with boxes) but with a 2-lines setup, with the first line for commit message in the "normal" font, and a second for the meta-data and links in a smaller font with a bit less visibility (to allow reading the commit messages top to bottom without interfering visually too much), it would fit wide screen much better IMHO. We could call it "modern wide-screen" for example. My $0.02. --DD ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] fossil-users Digest, Vol 119, Issue 6
On 12/5/17, Ron W wrote: > On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:56 AM, > > wrote: >> >> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:56:06 -0500 >> From: Richard Hipp >> Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Fossil in Debian >> >> On 12/5/17, Roy Keene wrote: >> > upstream doesn't make it easy, with their download page that uses >> > javascript to mangle the URLs, thus confounding Debian's automatic >> > monitoring tools. >> >> What else can I do to make things easier for Debian's automatic >> monitoring tools? What do the Debian monitoring tools need? >> > > Isn't this "URL mangling" part of the "bot" protection? > > If the zip files linked on the downloads page are pre-built, how much load > would the bots put on the website without the protections? > Barak communicated with me off-list. The problem is all the javascript magic that happens to create the download page. See https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/doc/trunk/www/aboutdownload.wiki for a description. I send Barak the https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/uvlist link, and he says that will work fine for Debians automatic update notification system. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] fossil-users Digest, Vol 119, Issue 6
On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 10:56 AM, wrote: > > Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 10:56:06 -0500 > From: Richard Hipp > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] Fossil in Debian > > On 12/5/17, Roy Keene wrote: > > upstream doesn't make it easy, with their download page that uses > > javascript to mangle the URLs, thus confounding Debian's automatic > > monitoring tools. > > What else can I do to make things easier for Debian's automatic > monitoring tools? What do the Debian monitoring tools need? > Isn't this "URL mangling" part of the "bot" protection? If the zip files linked on the downloads page are pre-built, how much load would the bots put on the website without the protections? ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Forgotten "Fossil 1.x" comment in add.c
On Dec 5, 2017, at 8:47 AM, Warren Young wrote: > > At minimum, that wiki article should be renamed Never mind. I see now that the page is being maintained under its current name to avoid breaking existing links on the web. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Fossil in Debian
On Dec 5, 2017, at 8:47 AM, Roy Keene wrote: > > Version 2.2 is in Debian testing, has been for a while. Thank you for chasing this on the back-channel, Roy. It’s good to know that there is a binary version of Fossil 2.x in Debian current already, if you absolutely cannot use one of the official binaries or build from source. (e.g. on Raspbian (thus ARM) and no space to install build tools.) > until the next stable release, the only real way to get a > newer fossil is to either install it from testing It’s good to have that confirmed from the project, rather than what we had before, which is just past-is-prologue speculation. Unfortunately, it looks rather complicated to install a single package from testing: https://serverfault.com/questions/22414/how-can-i-run-debian-stable-but-install-some-packages-from-testing ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Fossil in Debian
On 12/5/17, Roy Keene wrote: > upstream doesn't make it easy, with their download page that uses > javascript to mangle the URLs, thus confounding Debian's automatic > monitoring tools. Do I understand correctly that "upstream" == "Fossil"? You can always download the latest release tarball for Fossil using this URL: https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/tarball?r=release&name=fossil.tar.gz What else can I do to make things easier for Debian's automatic monitoring tools? What do the Debian monitoring tools need? -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes
On Tue, 05 Dec 2017 16:27:28 +0100, Richard Hipp wrote: Please keep a close eye on the Fossil website and report any usability issues. just a thought: could/should the boxes+checkin messages be indented, reflecting the horizontal position of the respective branch in the timeline graph (specifically, keeping the horizontal distance from the respective timeline graph bullet to the box constant for all branches)? I am aware that one would sacrifice some horizontal "real estate" by this, if there are many open branches (e.g. http://core.tcl.tk/tcl/timeline), but actually most ci messages are short so that would not cause too many line breaks. I could imagine that indenting would help to read through the contiguous ci messages of a certain branch a bit on top of what the color coding provides, especially for instances for the colors are recycled for different branches, e.g. here: http://core.tcl.tk/tcl/info/dcc6f04732c93947 any thoughts? thx, joerg -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] Fossil in Debian
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 15:20:48 + From: Barak A. Pearlmutter To: Roy Keene Subject: Re: Fossil in Debian Version 2.2 is in Debian testing, has been for a while. Been meaning to upgrade to 2.3 ... wait now it's 2.4 ... (But upstream doesn't make it easy, with their download page that uses javascript to mangle the URLs, thus confounding Debian's automatic monitoring tools.) Anyway, until the next stable release, the only real way to get a newer fossil is to either install it from testing, or for someone to put together a jessie-backports package. Which I could do if there is sufficient demand. Cheers, --Barak. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] Forgotten "Fossil 1.x" comment in add.c
On Dec 2, 2017, at 5:00 AM, bytevolc...@safe-mail.net wrote: > > What's up with this comment in add.c starting at line 27: It was written back when “Fossil 2.0” meant something different from what we now call “Fossil 2.0”: https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/wiki?name=Fossil+2.0 At minimum, that wiki article should be renamed and the comment updated. I think “legacy” mode should be enabled by default, but there are those who disagree. ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes
On 12/5/17, Reimer Behrends wrote: > Richard Hipp wrote: >> Which is better? >> >>A: https://www.fossil-scm.org/a/timeline >>B: https://www.fossil-scm.org/b/timeline > > I don't see much of a difference, Thanks for looking. But the original question is old, and the display is moved on. I'm not sure there is any difference in the A/B above any more. Probably I should remove those links :-) As you can see on the Fossil timeline (https://www.fossil-scm.org/timeline) I am busy making lots of changes. And I typically update the server to the latest check-in. See the light gray text at the very bottom of the page to find which version of Fossil is running on the server - currently cee662d96e. So every change I make to the code is quickly reflected on the website. Please keep a close eye on the Fossil website and report any usability issues. Also watch https://sqlite.org/src as it is using the exact same Fossil server. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes
I agree. Why does the [brief-hash] need to be a hyperlink and bracketed when the Timeline time stamp has the same link? On Tue, Dec 5, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Reimer Behrends wrote: > Richard Hipp wrote: > >> Which is better? >> >>A: https://www.fossil-scm.org/a/timeline >>B: https://www.fossil-scm.org/b/timeline >> > > I don't see much of a difference, to be honest (but that may be because > I'm late to the party and the layouts have changed during the past days). > The modern/normal/columnar views all seem to consume a lot of screen real > estate for my taste. > > I'll add that my biggest issue with the timeline UI is the presentation of > check-in links. You cannot copy them without the surrounding brackets, > which means that you cannot paste them into the command line without > editing, or first clicking through the link and then using the entire hash. > This is exacerbated by the problem that on the command line, `fossil > timeline` is very limited compared to what the web UI offers, so for a lot > of use cases, you're forced to use the web interface. > > Reimer Behrends > ___ > fossil-users mailing list > fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Re: [fossil-users] A-B comparison of proposed timeline changes
Richard Hipp wrote: Which is better? A: https://www.fossil-scm.org/a/timeline B: https://www.fossil-scm.org/b/timeline I don't see much of a difference, to be honest (but that may be because I'm late to the party and the layouts have changed during the past days). The modern/normal/columnar views all seem to consume a lot of screen real estate for my taste. I'll add that my biggest issue with the timeline UI is the presentation of check-in links. You cannot copy them without the surrounding brackets, which means that you cannot paste them into the command line without editing, or first clicking through the link and then using the entire hash. This is exacerbated by the problem that on the command line, `fossil timeline` is very limited compared to what the web UI offers, so for a lot of use cases, you're forced to use the web interface. Reimer Behrends ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
