Mikhail <mp39590@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2023 at 06:14:08PM +1000, Mark Jamsek wrote:
> > Thanks, Mikhail! I completely forgot about the limit option. This is
> > another ideal test case too, which I'll add to the list :)
> > 
> > While the proposed patch is indeed better than the current behaviour,
> > I don't think it is the best way to do this because it will fail to show
> > the marker if the limit view does contain the base commit.
> 
> What is the purpose of showing the marker in limit view at all? - it
> may look accurate and precise, but it is redundant info. User who uses
> "limit" looking for commits, not the info about whether his wt is clean.
> 
> I see no point in making something with 20 lines patch when almost
> the same user experience can be achieved with oneliner - it only
> increases cost of support for the code and raises entry point for new
> contributors.
> 
> But I've no strong objections.

tbh, I've never really used the limit view apart from early testing back
when it was first added so I'm not sure how it is normally used; that
is, if it's for more persistent browsing like how I normally use tog, or
for more transient use like how I use search. If it's the former, I
think it's important to be accurate, but if it's the latter--I agree--it
is not needed. So I'm more than happy to defer to your judgement if the
limit view is something you make good use of and don't think the more
accurate reporting is worthwhile.

I certainly prefer less code irrespective of how trivial it is so if the
marker is indeed redundant in limit view I would prefer to commit your
first diff too.


-- 
Mark Jamsek <https://bsdbox.org>
GPG: F2FF 13DE 6A06 C471 CA80  E6E2 2930 DC66 86EE CF68