hgweb page with hg log -b <branchname>

[Johan Samyn]

2010/1/9 Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen <danchr at gmail.com>:
> On 9 Jan 2010, at 02:27, Mads Kiilerich wrote:
>
>> FWIW I had DAG branches in mind, not named branches. That makes a
>> difference, but they might have a lot in common anyway.
>
> Currently, the semantics of the ‘heads’ command aren't revealed in the hgweb UI.
> I agree that it would be quite useful to show heads and lines-of-development —
> and that it'd probably share quite a bit of implementation with showing branches
>  — but in the UI, I believe it'd be best to keep them separate.
>
> A source of inspiration for improving ‘hgweb’ could be the Bitbucket UI. It appears
> that they have put quite a bit of thought into both layout and presentation. For
> example, an overview page showing branches, the most recent commits and so
> on, might be useful.
But we already have an overview (page) for branches (for tags too),
don't we ? As far as I was able to try out, we're already able to do
pretty as much as bitbucket.org, I think, if not more. (But we
obviously want even more ;) )

Things on bitbucket.org that are better than or lacking in hgweb :
*) The clone-link(s)in the top part.
*) The way the diff is shown (especially the real line numbers at the left).

There's also something (imho) completely unnecessary at bitbucket.org
: the dark grey label "merge" at the right. That's already obvious
from the 2 parents for that cset.

What I would find good (for hgweb) is an indication in the
changelog/shortlog for the start of new branches (named or unnamed).
Because that is not visible from the data shown.

>
> I took the liberty of adding “Web UI improvements/overhaul” to the list of possible
> agendas for the Sprint :) On a similar note, has any consideration been given to
> integrating the ‘graphlog’ extension into core?
>
> --
>
> Dan Villiom Podlaski Christiansen
> danchr at gmail.com
>
>