Change 395788 had a related patch set uploaded (by Petar.petkovic; owner: Petar.petkovic):
[mediawiki/core@master] Reserve space between filters and results

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/395788

Change 395788 merged by jenkins-bot:
[mediawiki/core@master] RCFilters: Reserve space between filters and results

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/395788

Moving to QA because the patch was merged. Still, @Pginer-WMF's inputs may be valuable.

In T182149#3817781, @Petar.petkovic wrote:

Moving to QA because the patch was merged. Still, @Pginer-WMF's inputs may be valuable.

The applied space makes sense, I was using 20px separation in the mockups.

The fact that the initial space is larger, may be because the in-height value used for the filters area is larger than necessary, and may be reduced. But that is a minor detail since the difference now is quite small.

In T182149#3819739, @Pginer-WMF wrote:

The applied space makes sense, I was using 20px separation in the mockups.

The fact that the initial space is larger, may be because the in-height value used for the filters area is larger than necessary, and may be reduced. But that is a minor detail since the difference now is quite small.

Separation of at least 20px is guaranteed, and you are right about little additional white space coming from min-height that we have for filters area. The reason we have that reserved height for filters area is to reduce jumpiness when page gets fully loaded.
That minimum height is readjusted to give less than 10px white space. The size of filters area could vary and two ways come to mind: having large amount of filters selected that they occupy two lines or have localized messages that increase height.

Before joining buttons for changes limit and date, there was at least 32px space (as far as I can remember), so this should come as reduction of white space.

Checked in betalabs - the space between New Filters tools and the results area is smaller.

Compare with the present layout in wmf.11:

@Pginer-WMF I am not sure about positioning/alignment for the Legend and the date label:

In T182149#3824561, @Etonkovidova wrote:

@Pginer-WMF I am not sure about positioning/alignment for the Legend and the date label:

Our main goal here is for the legend not to break the first line of the recent changes results. Given the limitations, I think the result seems a good compromise.

QA Recommendation: Resolve