From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Junio C Hamano Subject: Re: [PATCH] gitweb: make leftmost column of blame less cluttered. Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 19:26:05 -0700 Message-ID: <7virj0lsua.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> References: <20061003192018.GR2871@admingilde.org> <20061003194551.70537.qmail@web31809.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, Martin Waitz X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Oct 04 04:27:03 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GUwTE-0006zv-RD for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Wed, 04 Oct 2006 04:26:53 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030719AbWJDC0J (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 22:26:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030724AbWJDC0J (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 22:26:09 -0400 Received: from fed1rmmtao12.cox.net ([68.230.241.27]:48590 "EHLO fed1rmmtao12.cox.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030719AbWJDC0G (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Oct 2006 22:26:06 -0400 Received: from fed1rmimpo01.cox.net ([70.169.32.71]) by fed1rmmtao12.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20061004022606.JPMX26416.fed1rmmtao12.cox.net@fed1rmimpo01.cox.net>; Tue, 3 Oct 2006 22:26:06 -0400 Received: from assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net ([68.5.247.80]) by fed1rmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id W2Rz1V00f1kojtg0000000 Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:26:00 -0400 To: ltuikov@yahoo.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Luben Tuikov writes: >> Then you don't need to worry about repeating the commit id, >> and perhaps it is not even needed any more? I am contradicting myself but I personally like what Pasky runs at http://repo.or.cz/ too, although it goes to the other extreme to spend more space for line-by-line annotation ;-) > I like Junio's first patch on the subject with the only > objection that the "chunk" can be 100s of 1000s of lines > if the file is too big and there had never been any changes > since the initial commit. > > I like the fact that the "data part" of blame is text, and > that the commit-8 is on the left, and color-chunked. Sometimes > people simply _remember_ a number of commit-8's and thus the > layout of blame is intentional, since they can look to the left > and recognize a commit-8... It is not only the initial commit. A substantial rewrite and new development also has the same issue. I think you are also contradicting yourself by saying that people would recognize a commit-8, and at the same time you do not like the chunk code that makes sure you do not get too few of them. If people _do_ recognize commit-8 (I seriously doubt that), then wouldn't it help to make sure you have them on every couple-dozen lines so that the user would see the familiar one even when scrolled?