[PATCH] pullrequest/compare: add logical changeset index to clarify the order

[Mads Kiilerich]

On 05/16/2015 10:46 PM, Thomas De Schampheleire wrote:
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 11:26 PM, Mads Kiilerich <mads at kiilerich.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not sure how much of a win I think it is ... but ok. A mouseover tooltip
>> could perhaps explain what the number means - especially if the tip was
>> different for the first and last changeset.
> I don't really understand what you mean with 'if the tip was different ...'
> And also, what kind of explanation would you suggest? Something like:
> 'Commit 3/10 in this list (ordered from parent to child)' ?
>
>> Or could we perhaps just add a line explaining "oldest at bottom, most
>> recent on top" before and/or after the list instead of using vertical space
>> on every line?
> This is an alternative solution that was included in my original patch.
>
> Adding the logical index was actually an idea of yours:
> "It would probably be simpler to just put a number on all the
> changesets in the series. The number will be local for the PR but it
> will be small and the ordering will be obvious (even though the number
> itself will be unstable in the case where the topological ordering on
> the server somehow should change). I think that would be
> upstreamable."
> http://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/kallithea-general/2015q2/000780.html
>
> The advantage of an index is that it can easily be referred to in oral
> conversations between developers, as opposed to referring to the
> changeset hash or commit title.

A new concept such as this number could use some kind of explanation ... 
unless the explanation is that it is completely obvious. The mouseover 
could perhaps say something like what you said. How about "Ordering 
within pull request" and perhaps special texts "First changeset in pull 
request" and "Last changeset in the pull request"?

BTW: The ordering is not really stable if the PR changesets not are 
linear. The topological ordering of the repo can change when the admin 
does cleanup behind the scene. We should perhaps make a more stable 
topological sorting of the DAG (based on stable info such as timestamps 
and hashes) before showing the DAGs.

/Mads