At 05:54 AM 7/22/2011, Remigiusz Modrzejewski wrote: >On Jul 22, 2011, at 14:46 , Richard Hipp wrote: >> The --bgcolor on the last commit is optional. But it is nice >> to have color on branches. > >By the way: this is one of the more cumbersome things about the >UI. I'd really like to see this done automatically. But then >again, I don't feel like wasting my time on this, so I don't >expect anyone to waste theirs...
It would be nice if branches had a default color distinct from the trunk. Naturally, the --bgcolor option should still be available to override that default, and the UI could still change it later. One way to do that that *might* be at least somewhat immune to bikeshedding would be generate a hash of the branch tag name and use it for the color. For extra credit make the hash function naturally get white for the trunk, and guarantee that it can generate enough different colors to be "interesting" in a bushy repo, but not too many or any that are too dark. The latter condition is easy to get by computing a small (perhaps eight bit) hash value, and assigning its bits to color components in a way that distributes them among the colors and sets a minimum brightness. The former condition is easily achieved by adding a suitable constant to the result of the hash such that the finished color is white. I wouldn't worry much about hash collisions, just as long as most collisions for the trunk are "unlikely" branch names. Ross Berteig r...@cheshireeng.com Cheshire Engineering Corp. http://www.CheshireEng.com/ _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
