I prefer (2). It's more concise and looks great in each of the examples
you provided. Therefore, I'm not sure it's worth maintaining both
display styles in the source code.
Warm regards,
Steven
On Mon, Mar 09, 2015 at 11:06:59PM -0400, Richard Hipp wrote:
Which timeline graph do you prefer:
(1) https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?y=ci&nomo=0
(2) https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?y=ci&nomo=1
The difference is in the merge lines. Other examples:
(1) https://core.tcl.tk/tk/timeline?y=ci&nomo=0
(2) https://core.tcl.tk/tk/timeline?y=ci&nomo=1
(1) https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?y=ci&b=2015-02-26&nomo=0
(2) https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?y=ci&b=2015-02-26&nomo=1
The current default display is as in (1). When there are many
parallel branches in a graph, Fossil reduces the spacing between the
vertical lines of the graph (called "rails" in the code) and when the
rails get really close together, Fossil automatically switches to
style (2) because that is clearly easier to read when the graph is
scrunched together. (See, for example,
https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?y=ci&railpitch=11). But
after making that enhancements, I notice that style (2) seems less
cluttered, and so now I'm wondering if it ought to be the default.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
