The output of this command is confusing. It is not clear which of the hashes printed is that of the revision and which one is the respective head commit.
Further, the hash is omitted on the initial revision, adding confusion.
Further, the terminology of “revised” vs. “updated” is confusing.
This rewrites timeline.rs to drop the distinction between various
revisions (in wording, the small icon is still different) and cleans up
the output.
Attention is paid to alignment of the output. Now all verbs of updates (“accepted”, “rejected”, “reviewed”, “merged”) are aligned, and authors (“… by …”) are also aligned.
The rewrite itself is not for better code quality or readability.
Note that all the code in this file only accessed via one fn by one
callsite in the implementation of rad patch.
The output of this command is confusing. It is not clear which of the hashes printed is that of the revision and which one is the respective head commit.
Further, the hash is omitted on the initial revision, adding confusion.
Further, the terminology of “revised” vs. “updated” is confusing.
This rewrites timeline.rs to drop the distinction between various
revisions (in wording, the small icon is still different) and cleans up
the output.
Attention is paid to alignment of the output. Now all verbs of updates (“accepted”, “rejected”, “reviewed”, “merged”) are aligned, and authors (“… by …”) are also aligned.
The rewrite itself is not for better code quality or readability.
Note that all the code in this file only accessed via one fn by one
callsite in the implementation of rad patch.
I really like the new output
Rebase, improve based on Erik’s review (but not exactly what was discussed, I opted for @ as a shorter separator).
REVIEW
Changes:
- Dropped box alignment
- Squashed doc fix
Changes:
- Align
Base [..]wildcard - Entry in CHANGELOG
Looks great, thank!
Rebased.