Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/01/07/17:35:44
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
> I don't understand. Why is there an "All" there at all? The only
thing
> that I've asked for, and have been asking for, is clickable
categories. I
> wasn't asking for special "All" logic.
The All is a freebie that took me all of an hour.
> I thought that that I had stressed this previously. I wasn't
expecting
> anyone to try to add "All" logic to setup.exe. I thought you'd argued
> against that, in fact. It can be easily done by 'upset'.
Cool. I needed something to test my clickable categories code on. An All
category was the easiest way.
The second issue is that (IMO) for users, in a hierarchical environment,
finding a category Full, is less intuitive than a hierarchical container
that encompasses everything. I've the same objection about both things,
so I chose this in an attempt to reduce user confusion. If you feel that
this will cause mroe confusion, then we can reexamine things.
> I don't even understand why we need multiple levels, at least at this
> point. We already had the ability to put one package in multiple
> categories. That's all that I was expecting. The Full category would
> just be a separate category with everything in it.
See above.
> Or, at least that's what I was proposing as a quick fix. It sounds
like
> the new version of setup will have more functionality. I think it
would
> have been nice (tm) if we could have released something like what I
> envisioned earlier. I thought that it was a relatively simple thing
to
> do and that it would have cut back on some user confusion.
I did intend to do just that. However a couple of things intervened.
1) The categories released version of the code is nowhere near as clean
internally, making clickable categories function was painful (I didn't
succeed after a moderate attempt).
2) My time of late has been much less available than I might wish.
Rob
- Raw text -