Re: [fossil-users] Timeline graph display options
On 2015-03-09 21:42:51, Andy Bradford wrote: > Thus said Richard Hipp on Mon, 09 Mar 2015 23:06:59 -0400: > > > 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 > > (1) because the relationship to the node from which the arrow originates > is more clear to me. > Same thought here. ___ 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] Timeline graph display options
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: 400054ff5906 ___ 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] Timeline graph display options
Although both are good, my vote is for nomo=0 (choice 1) as being the one that 'goes to 11' :) -Original Message- 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
Re: [fossil-users] Timeline graph display options
Wow -- is that ever subtle... now that I see it, I think I like nomo=1 -bch On 3/10/15, Martin S. Weber wrote: > On 2015-03-09 21:42:51, Andy Bradford wrote: >> Thus said Richard Hipp on Mon, 09 Mar 2015 23:06:59 -0400: >> >> > 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 >> >> (1) because the relationship to the node from which the arrow originates >> is more clear to me. >> > > Same thought here. > > > ___ > 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] Timeline graph display options
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Steven Harford wrote: > 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. > Also agree ___ 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] Timeline graph display options
On 3/10/2015 3:47 AM, Steven Harford wrote: > 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. Agree. -- Andy Goth | signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ 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] Timeline graph display options
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
Re: [fossil-users] Timeline graph display options
On 3/9/15, Andy Bradford wrote: > Perhaps if there were > 15--20 rails, where they were taking up a disproportionate amount of > space (2) might make a big enough difference. > 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. -- 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] Timeline graph display options
Thus said Richard Hipp on Mon, 09 Mar 2015 23:06:59 -0400: > 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 (1) because the relationship to the node from which the arrow originates is more clear to me. > (1) https://core.tcl.tk/tk/timeline?y=ci&nomo=0 There appears to be a minor glitch in this timeline (attached as image) with one of the arrows not quite aligned properly. > (See, for example, > https://www.fossil-scm.org/fossil/timeline?y=ci&railpitch=11). I removed railpitch from the above URL and I think I prefer it without. The graph is slightly wider, but I still find the additional arrow lines to be helpful. Maybe this is just habit bias creeping in from having them in the timeline already, but I'm not sure. Perhaps if there were 15--20 rails, where they were taking up a disproportionate amount of space (2) might make a big enough difference. Andy TAI64 timestamp: 400054fe685e ___ 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] Timeline graph display options
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:06 PM, 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 I personally prefer 2. Initially 1 looks more aesthetically pleasing, but when shown the other examples, it simply looks too busy. Also, I think the EE part of me sees the examples in 2 and they remind me of circuit "nodes", and therefore they are easily understood. That may not apply to everyone though. To summarize, I prefer 2. - joe ___ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
[fossil-users] Timeline graph display options
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. FWIW: The nomo= and railpitch= query parameters are experimental and will be removed, probably before the next release. So do not become attached to them. -- 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
