Mail Archives: cygwin-apps/2002/01/07/17:30:30
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
>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.
- Raw text -