From: Chris Shoemaker <c.shoemaker@cox.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 02:38:33 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH gitweb] Visually indicating patch size with horizontal bars
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:
> 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