[PATCH] changelog: repeat pager links on top of changelog

[Thomas De Schampheleire]

On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 2:30 AM, Mads Kiilerich <mads at kiilerich.com> wrote:
> On 03/07/2015 08:50 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:29 PM, Mads Kiilerich <mads at kiilerich.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 03/04/2015 10:06 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
>>>>
>>>> # HG changeset patch
>>>> # User Thomas De Schampheleire <thomas.de.schampheleire at gmail.com>
>>>> # Date 1425503195 -3600
>>>> #      Wed Mar 04 22:06:35 2015 +0100
>>>> # Node ID ed66618ffb23900e1cf56add90f54801e455a0eb
>>>> # Parent  297d798bd5b22ea562d0813bed7e5eb6bc646c1b
>>>> changelog: repeat pager links on top of changelog
>>>>
>>>> In particular since the default number of entries in the changelog has
>>>> been
>>>> increased to 100, having the pager links both above and below the
>>>> changelog
>>>> is more user-friendly.
>>>
>>>
>>> When will the user ever be looking at the top of a multi-page listing of
>>> changesets and without seeing the end of the current page know that he
>>> has
>>> to navigate to the next one ... or 4 pages forward?
>>
>> For example because he is trying to find something around a given
>> revision number, and uses the first few entries as a key. Based on
>> that he can guess how many pages to advance.
>
>
> Mercurial revision numbers are local. Git doesn't really have revision
> numbers. Kallithea can be configured to show the server's local revision
> numbers but I think these revision numbers are misleading and barely useful.
>
> Please consider your example in more details: How did the user end up with a
> revision number? Was it the right one - and by which definition? Wouldn't it
> be better to not show the revision number and thus prevent the user from
> being hit by these wrong expectations?

Fair enough, replace 'revision number' with 'date' in my scenario..