hgk graph layout

[TK Soh]

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Alpár Jüttner <alpar at cs.elte.hu> wrote:
>
>  > >  Thus I would like to see a tool featuring the functionality of hgtk and
>  > >  the visual appearance of hgk.
>  >
>  > How strange! I actual feel hgk looks very bad compare to TortoiseHg's
>  > changelog viewer ;-)
>
>  Of course, it is a matter of taste in some sense.

Absolutely. BTW, your comments below are exactly the kind of feedback
we need :-)

>  However, it is a fact, that hgtk is very squandering with the space.
>  Because of that it shows a much less portion of the history than hgk
>  does.

Actually there is certainly a lot of areas needing improvement in
hgtk, however, I share your view on the amount of 'empty' space taken
up by the changelog viewer.

>  It is also a very bad idea the have a separate column for the tags. In
>  one hand, it is empty for most of the changesets, therefore it is again
>  a waste of space. On the other hand, a changeset often has more than one
>  tags. For example using mq, the first patch is tagged with 'qbase' and
>  with the name of the first patch. This second tag is invisible in hgtk
>  unless you set this column very large, which is even more waste of

It's been quite awhile, but I believe the older version of the viewer
actually has the tags displayed similar to hgk. It was later converted
into a column somehow (I need to dig out the history on this),
probably to handle the situation where multiple tags, or long tag
names, would push the summary column too wide.

But you have a point that most changesets come without any tags at
all. In this case, the tag column is indeed wasting quite a bit of
real estate. And I also agree with you that there's to much empty
space between the changeset rows.

Let see what we can do.

>  space. Not to mention that I have to resize this column all the time a
>  start hgtk, as it does not remember the column sizes.

You are right. It doesn't. Not yet.

>  Best regards,
>  Alpar
>
>