|
From: Jason K. <jk...@sh...> - 2006-11-18 15:52:37
|
I don't think changing image sizes should be a priority, nor a configuration option. Furthermore, many of the changes that you are making will only make my job more difficult when splitting the codebase, as these changes should have been made in StatCVS. Now, if you want to go and change these things as they help you achieve your goals, then I have no objection to this refactoring and cleanup once the codebases are split. I recommend two things: 1 - help me split the codebases, as I am the currently the bottleneck for any enhancements and your changes are making my job harder :-) (Rename our package to statsvn, take the 0.2.3 version of StatCVS, paste that in folder statcvs, delete everything you can in statsvn that is identical in statcvs, refactor all other classes so that statsvn classes extend statcvs classes and only override what is necessary, etc. ) 2 - file patches with StatCVS for issues that you find the QA tools that enhance performance and maintainability. If accepted, apply them here too. If we don't do this, we're making strides in the wrong direction. We don't want to replace StatCVS, we want to extend it. Thanks, Jason _____ From: sta...@li... [mailto:sta...@li...] On Behalf Of Benoit Xhenseval Sent: November 17, 2006 8:08 PM To: sta...@li... Subject: [Statsvn-developers] Chart sizes Hi *, I've reduced some of the warnings by doing a few changes here and there but nothing to the format. I agree with Doug, Jalopy would be great to use but defining the 'standard' could be difficult unles we pick say "sun" standard + tabs. I also had issues with Jalopy in the past as it was always reformatting everything (we have to run a cvs status first to see the local changes and then do the format on those only). May be this is fixed in Maven plugin? Quick look at the Checkstyle shows that we have different sizes for charts, in different locations. i.e. it is difficult to ensure consistency, furthermore it is not possible to change it (I think that 640 * 480 is a bit small nowadays) I believe we have the following sizes in use: - 640 * 480 (when it is 'big', loc, file count, file size, directory size) - 400 * 300 (loc on main page) - 500 * 300 (activity charts) - 640 * 460 (for the author commit activity) - 450 * x (for the author adding/modifying activity) May I suggest that we rationalise these in 2 categories: - "big" (LOC, file count, file size, directory size, author commit activity), e.g. 640 * 480 (although I'd prefer a default of 750 x 562 which is proportional) - "small" (loc on main page, activity chart, author adding (just width)) e.g. 500 * 300 - however, anything where the height could vary (depending on number of developers for instance) would only pick the width. I think that it would be preferrable if all charts on a given page had the same width. I would also like to make this configurable via the command line parser and ConfigurationOptions (may be a simple 'profile' that set a default 'ensemble'?) In any case, default behavio(u)r would remain the same. Any objection? Thanks Best regards Benoit -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.6/536 - Release Date: 16/11/2006 15:51 |