Bug 598828 - Revision history formatting is difficult to read
Summary: Revision history formatting is difficult to read
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Publican
Classification: Community
Component: publican   
(Show other bugs)
Version: 1.6
Hardware: All Linux
low
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jeff Fearn
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-06-02 06:23 UTC by Dana Mison
Modified: 2010-11-24 04:17 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-07-12 03:51:04 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)
current appearance in html (38.26 KB, image/png)
2010-06-02 06:23 UTC, Dana Mison
no flags Details
proposed appearance (38.89 KB, image/png)
2010-06-02 06:24 UTC, Dana Mison
no flags Details
My take on the revision history layout (135.63 KB, image/png)
2010-06-10 00:33 UTC, Jeff Fearn
no flags Details

Description Dana Mison 2010-06-02 06:23:03 UTC
Description of problem:
The formatting of the revision history makes it difficult to read.  I would be nice to have them layed out with a bit more whitespace.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
1.6.3

Screenshots attached of current & a proposal using the html format as the example.

Comment 1 Dana Mison 2010-06-02 06:23:47 UTC
Created attachment 418929 [details]
current appearance in html

Comment 2 Dana Mison 2010-06-02 06:24:35 UTC
Created attachment 418930 [details]
proposed appearance

Comment 3 Jeff Fearn 2010-06-10 00:33:55 UTC
Created attachment 422739 [details]
My take on the revision history layout

Here is my take on what would look better, let me know what you think.

Comment 4 Dana Mison 2010-06-10 00:52:52 UTC
I would still like to have the horizontal line under the rev#/date/author, but that is just a personal aesthetics I think.

I would be quite happy with that layout.

Comment 5 Ruediger Landmann 2010-06-10 01:11:24 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)

> Here is my take on what would look better, let me know what you think.    

Looks good to me :)

Darrin -- the horizontal line under the rev/date/author looks confusing to me; I need to look twice to work out which description goes with which rev/date/author line; ie, is the rev/date/author line a header or a footer for the change described? I would need a bigger, thicker line to separate the revisions in that case.

Comment 6 Jeff Fearn 2010-06-10 04:03:37 UTC
Reformated PDF and HTML revision history.

Fixed in build: 1.6.3-0.t101

Comment 7 Ruediger Landmann 2010-07-12 03:51:04 UTC
Confirmed fixed in 2.1


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.