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

[Mads Kiilerich]

On 03/08/2015 10:20 AM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> 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..

That assumes that history is linear and with monotonically increasing 
dates? That is not the case for the repositories I have seen.

Instead Kallithea usually shows the graph so it is more "obvious" how 
changesets are related. (I guess one reasons I find paging odd for a 
repository is that you can't page a graph - especially because the 
topological sorting is arbitrary. It would make more sense to be able to 
zoom in/out or constrain the view to a subgraph.)

I could see the point in having "pages" where each page was one date if 
time was monotonic (perhaps by using "push" date) ... but that is not 
what we have.

Interesting discussion!

What do others say? How does it work and look for you?

I guess I'm "-0". It takes up some space and leaves less useful 
information "above the fold" and I think it looks a bit odd and I don't 
think it adds much value but it does no harm.

/Mads