Mailing-List: contact cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-apps-owner AT cygwin DOT com
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-apps-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-apps/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-apps-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/lists.html#faqs>
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 17:30:30 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Success report: Setup.exe on Windows 2000.
Message-ID: <20020107223030.GD11086@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com
References: <NCBBIHCHBLCMLBLOBONKEEGDCIAA DOT g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net> <1010388831 DOT 633 DOT 0 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <20020107155329 DOT GA3664 AT redhat DOT com> <019c01c197c7$a7c116e0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <019c01c197c7$a7c116e0$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 09:07:10AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>From: "Christopher Faylor" <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
>>I wasn't expecting you to provide this.  All that I wanted was
>>clickable categories.  I'll take care of providing an uber-category.
>>
>>FWIW, I was going to call it "Full" rather than "All" since you pointed
>>out that there could be a time when there are mutually exclusive
>>packages offered.
>
>I'm making it clickable as the next step.  I'd done all the hard work
>for multiple levels back in decemeber.  We can twiddle this around
>quite easily until it looks 'right' to the user.

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.

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'.

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.

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.

cgf