Simon Large wrote:
> 2009/3/13 Stefan Fuhrmann <stefanfuhrmann_at_alice-dsl.de>:
> > Simon Large wrote:
> >> > * 4.25.2. Changing the View:
> >> > Â Maybe note that rows may now overlap (see also
> >> > Â Figure 4.46). Different rows are placed at least
> >> > Â 10 units (10 pixels @ 100%) apart. The row base line
> >> > Â is the node side facing the earlier revision.
> >>
> >> Does the user need to know about this?
> >
> > The DUG speaks of 'rows' (under the 'Group branches' option)
> > and 'strict row ordering'. In, 1.6 rows will still be ordered strictly
> > by revision but they may partly overlap to save vertical space.
> >
> > So, this is more like "managing expectations". IMHO, the current
> > description is wrong or at least misleading. A slightly different
> > wording may be sufficient.
>
> Help me out here. Which bit is wrong or misleading - why would anyone
> care that the rows overlap as long as they are still in order?
The thing is that there are no longer table-like rows anymore.
Examples in figure 4.47: r15162-r14940-r14933 are consecutive
rows. Similarly: tags on r14238.
Nothing horribly important, after all, but some users may
get confused.
> If you can improve the wording to make it more accurate then
> please do it. It is easier for me to tweak the English than to keep
> guessing at what might be wrong ;-)
I tried something in r15751. But maybe it's more confusing /
distracting than helping at that point in the docs. Revert it if
it doesn't make sense there.
-- Stefan^2.
Received on 2009-03-17 23:15:35 CET