Re: [PATCH gitweb] Visually indicating patch size with horizontal bars
- From
- Chris Shoemaker <c.shoemaker@cox.net>
- Date
- Oct 28, 2005, 02:38 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20051028023833.GA19939@pe.Belkin>
- In-Reply-To
- <20051028015642.GA31822@vrfy.org>
On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 03:56:42AM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 04:39:45PM -0400, Chris Shoemaker wrote: > > > > I really like gitweb (thanks Kay!), but I thought it would be nice to > > have a visual indication of patch size. I found this helpful when > > scanning though the shortlogs. > > This looks nice, but if the patch size tells you something important, > your commit subjects are probably too short or wrong. :)
Yeah, some people write lousy commit subjects. But me? Nooo, /never/. :)
> You may try to use CSS instead of an embedded picture to draw the bar, > just like the RSS logo in the footer, which is simple CSS rendered in the > browser.
I'll look into that, but the cost wasn't in the image; it was in the width calculation.
Here's a side-by-side comparison. Open two browser tabs and flip between them:
http://www.codesifter.com/cgi-bin/gitweb-difftreeP.cgi?p=git.git;a=shortlog http://www.codesifter.com/cgi-bin/gitweb-difftreeNames.cgi?p=git.git;a=shortlog
I've used a project you all are familar with, and that has more than two files. The first page uses 'git-diff-tree -p $hash|wc -l'. The second page uses 'git-diff-tree -r --name-only|wc -l'. (Oh and I have a merge indicator now.)
How do they compare for showing damage-potential? I think they both do a reasonable job. I think the full patch diff is a bit better, but it does cost.
-chris