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
Message-ID: <031501c197cb$a0c22d80$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
From: "Robert Collins" <robert DOT collins AT itdomain DOT com DOT au>
To: <cygwin-apps AT cygwin DOT com>
References: <NCBBIHCHBLCMLBLOBONKEEGDCIAA DOT g DOT r DOT vansickle AT worldnet DOT att DOT net> <1010388831 DOT 633 DOT 0 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <20020107155329 DOT GA3664 AT redhat DOT com> <019c01c197c7$a7c116e0$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20020107223030 DOT GD11086 AT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: Success report: Setup.exe on Windows 2000.
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2002 09:35:36 +1100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jan 2002 22:35:36.0711 (UTC) FILETIME=[A0542970:01C197CB]

----- 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