Re: Feature matrix filter
От | Dave Page |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Feature matrix filter |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+OCxoyYH=D+qzKv54DnMCsBMEOBF879Ddg7ER=P4Eb7MZ-yDg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Feature matrix filter (Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>) |
Список | pgsql-www |
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 11:12 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: > On 30 May 2013 11:33, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote: >> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote: >>> That should be the case with the "hide unchanged features" checkbox >>> checked anyway. The rule is, if it's the same value across all >>> displayed versions (regardless of whether they're all "Yes", "No" or >>> "Obsolete"), the row becomes hidden. >> >> Yeah, I get that. I'm just suggesting that obsolete features should be >> treated differently, as they're even less interesting than something >> that was implemented before the first version show. > > Well it still seems like an unnecessary complication of yet another > checkbox for the sake of 6 affected features. I could add it if you > really want it. The rule would be that if any of the displayed > versions for a particular feature contain "Obsolete" then the row is > hidden. My original suggestion was just to hide them always. I still think that's fine. I have no particular desire for a checkbox for this, but suggested it in case anyone did. >> Regardless of that, I do think that checkbox should be on it's own line. And everything centred to look tidier. > > Latest version does that. That looks much nicer :-) > And while we're doing this, would we want to add 7.4 back in? It's in > the database anyway, or is it just too old? It does help show the progression of the project, and there is certainly room for the checkbox. I don't object to including it. -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-www по дате отправления: