Re: Feature matrix filter

From: Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>
To: Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: "w^3" <pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Feature matrix filter
Date: 2013-05-30 22:12:15
Message-ID: CAA-aLv66Q4uS0j=c9G8a_4L12oLwQVWUT=0CJu_U_sdnUGEMvA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-www

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?

--
Thom

Attachment Content-Type Size
matrix_filter_v4.patch application/octet-stream 4.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-www by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dave Page 2013-05-31 07:47:17 Re: Feature matrix filter
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2013-05-30 17:25:52 Re: Consent to translate your web page at http://wiki.postgresql.org/