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 17:41:38 -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: <20020107224138.GE11086@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$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks> <20020107223030 DOT GD11086 AT redhat DOT com> <031501c197cb$a0c22d80$0200a8c0 AT lifelesswks>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <031501c197cb$a0c22d80$0200a8c0@lifelesswks>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 09:35:36AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
>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.

Nope.  I agree that hierarchical is better.

>>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).

Ok.  It sounds like we have something better anyway.

>2) My time of late has been much less available than I might wish.

Yeah, I know the feeling.  My sympathies or congratulations depending on
how much fun the "other stuff" might be.

cgf