Re: Feature matrix filter

Nope.

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK:http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

> On 13 Mar 2014, at 15:17, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> On 13 March 2014 15:04, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> On 30 May 2013 23:12, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>> On 30 May 2013 11:33, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)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.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> So, with 9.4 coming up later this year, the feature matrix will be
>>> overflowing many screens.
>>>
>>> I've rebased the old patch and also included jQuery rather than
>>> referring to a Google-hosted copy.
>>
>> Works for me :-)
>
> Any objections to me committing this?
>
> --
> Thom