display of merged revisions in loggerhead and log

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Michael Hudson wrote:
> Martin Pool wrote:
>>> The topic was how to make it apparent that the committer of a merge
>>> revision didn't necessarily do all the work being merged.
>>
>>> I actually got around to having a hack at this this morning.  I've
>>>  attached two screenshots of my efforts.  The first does something like
>>>  what Martin suggests, though it doesn't restrict itself to first names.
>>>   Perhaps it should, because the main problem with it is that it takes
>>>  up too much horizontal space.  This attempt is also extremely hacky, it
>>>  wouldn't be appropriate for branches which didn't work like bzr.dev.
>>>
>>>  The second just adds a "Branch authors" field to the information that
>>>  drops down when you click the arrow next to a revision.  This seems
>>> like
>>>  a better bet, probably.
>>
>> I like the display of the first one a lot.
> 
> OK.  I should probably display first names only.  And think of a way to
> make it nice looking on more branches than just bzr.dev.
> 
>> "Branch authors" is not such a great name though.  I think you should
>> just show it as 'committer' or 'author' (depending which one you're
>> displaying), and clearly distinguish the person who committed the
>> overall merge from the people who committed merged revisions.
> 
> Two columns?  Or just bolding the committer of the merge or something? I
> guess I can try various things out.
> 
>> Showing this on unfolded revisions is not so great.  What we really
>> should be doing there is expanding out all the merged-in revisions,
>> like in log.  Then you can see exactly what those people did.
> 
> The thing that scares me about doing this is merges from head.  This
> isn't a problem for bzr.dev, but if you look at some long lived feature
> branch (like say the packs branch back in the day) there might be some
> 'merge from head' that brings in a thousand new revisions and this would
> make the changelog view stupidly large.  But I guess that's just a
> matter of only displaying a limited number of revisions and a 'see also'
> link.
> 
> /me goes off to read the code for 'bzr log'...
> 
> Cheers,
> mwh

I think a '...' is perfectly appropriate in that sort of case. Also true
for your "Authors" field. Considering that again that could be 1000s of
commits. (I have the nested-tree code sitting here, which is claiming
revno 1800 or so. 1k mainline commits away from dev tip, which indicates
a lot of stuff brought in as a few big merges.)

John
=:->

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFH0HeZJdeBCYSNAAMRAt3gAKCcSWlO+O84IDqhLjp7+VK6nhN4bgCfd+vh
H1v8FsOiP4rFTezwAGFjGsQ=
=7/o5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----