Simon Large <simon.tortoisesvn_at_googlemail.com> wrote:
> I have started looking at docs for the revision graph and I have some
> questions for you, and some comments on how it works.
Great! At least the "looking" part ;)
> What are tree stripes? I tried that option on a graph of the TSVN docs
> and it seems to do nothing.
Under normal conditions, the revision graph is a tree.
The following two operations may fragment it into
a forest, i.e. collection of trees:
* filtering. Ex.: open the filter dialog and say "branches"
in the lower edit box. Make sure the check box below
is not checked. Now, most tags should have lost their
connection to the main tree. Specifying a suitable
revision range will yield a similar effect.
* splitting the tree
Since I use the splitting feature for long but "slender"
histories, I had difficulties to visually group the nodes
into trees: only following the ancestry would reveal
whether neighboring nodes belong to the same tree.
Even the double spacing between trees is not enough.
This is where "tree stripes" (I'm definitely open to
better wording here) kick in: If the graph consists of
more than one tree, the background color will be
slightly modified in an alternating pattern. Just enough
to create a contrast at the tree boundary.
It is an option for two reasons:
* people may want a "pure white" background
* while I certainly want to activate the feature with
the second operation, I may not want it after
filtering.
> I can't see what "shift trees to top of window" does. On the TSVN docs
> graph nothing changes.
Again, this applies to the multiple trees case only.
Although the UI option suggests otherwise, the
"natural" node order places revision 1 into the
left top corner. Consequently, if you show the HEAD
an the top, all trees will still start at the same
*bottom* coordinate. "shift trees to top" prevents
that.
Things become even more interesting with "non-grouped"
or "revision-order-true" graphs: Even after filtering
or splitting, the nodes retain their vertical position.
"shift trees to top" eliminates that "cohesion".
However, the gaps within a tree will not be removed,
even if they could.
> What does 'check working copy for modifications' do? I have a modified
> file withing TSVN docs, but nothing changes on the graph when I select
> that button.
This will work for working copy paths only.
It should (at least after F5) give a red extra node.
That node will appear above HEAD if your working
is recent enough. Otherwise, it will branch from
the BASE revision, if a newer node is shown as well.
> When I split a sub-tree the base of the split sub-tree overlaps the
> next child node (subtree-overlap.png)
I noticed that as well for certain combinations of
options. I will look into this one.
BTW, I can see that "tree stripes" is active in that
picture: noticed that yellowish-blueish background?
> The base of a branch and the following revision are touching which
> makes it impossible to determine which rev the [-] popup button will
> act on (collapse-which.png)
That is indeed a problem. My solution so far is
the the glyphs have asymmetric borders: the light
side points to the node they belong to (does
not apply to the right side of the node). In your
example, they belong to r13316 and you will
collapse the older tree.
Also, the glyphs are shown for the node that
you were over or closed to when they appeared.
In other words: enter the node and move to
the glyph area and they will behave just as
expected.
> When I select a vanilla revision (white rect) the colour does not
> change to indicate that it is selected.
Oops.
> When I select a revision and change the view (grouping, split, show
> all revs, etc), the view reverts to the top left corner. It would be
> good to keep the selected item within view.
Maybe, I can fix that.
> When I collapse a following tree the box maybe positioned right at the
> top of the graph, so [+] button is mostly off the graph
> (collapse-top.png - the [+] is at top centre)
That one is related to the overlap issue.
> Is it possible to have a tooltip with those popup buttons? Maybe I
> just need to get used to them. Or maybe there should be a 'legend' box
> which can be shown in the bottom right corner.
I will give the tooltips a try. They could also
say things like "hide revision 13309 and older".
In yours and Stefan's screenshots, I noticed that
the toolbar is missing the last two icons. Would
it be possible to make them a few pixels wider?
Enough work for the next weekend ;)
-- Stefan^2.
Received on 2009-01-11 15:21:09 CET