Re: Feature matrix filter

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 13 March 2014 15:29, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 4:17 PM, 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?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I haven't tested it yet (the new version), but a few quick comments
> >> > based on
> >> > looking at it:
> >>
> >> Argh... just as I pushed it out.
> >
> >
> > No better time to fix it than now :D
> >
> >
> >> > We have other parts of the site already using jquery, please make sure
> >> > we're
> >> > consitent in how we load it (currently we use a CDN - but we should
> use
> >> > either one, whichever it is, not both)
> >>
> >> Okay, I can switch it back to the CDN if you prefer.
> >
> >
> > Either that, or change the existing usage to use an embedded one. But I
> > think in general people tend to say that using a CDN is a good idea for
> > this.
>
> Until someone we don't know breaks it of course.
>

Of course. But given the tens or hundreds of thousands, at least, sites
that rely on Google not breaking that, I think we're reasonably safe. Half
the bloody internet will break if they stop hosting that one, and we can
easily switch to a locally hosted one at that time if we have to.

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/