X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [ANNOUNCEMENT] [1.7] Updated: cygwin-1.7.0-47 Date: Wed, 6 May 2009 10:35:40 -0500 Message-ID: <297343D29C14AA4D822142893ABEAEF3065D28C6@srv1163ex1.flightsafety.com> In-Reply-To: <4A01ADC1.70902@gmail.com> References: <4A01A6B4 DOT 3070408 AT cornell DOT edu> <4A01ADC1 DOT 70902 AT gmail DOT com> From: "Thrall, Bryan" To: X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Dave Korn wrote on Wednesday, May 06, 2009 10:33 AM: > Ken Brown wrote: >> On 5/6/2009 9:25 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> This -47 release is accompanied by a new setup-1.7.exe installer, version >>> number is 2.617.=20 >>>=20 >>> This new installer adds the capability to search for package names in a >>> search field, top-left in the package selection window. >>=20 >> There's one potential pitfall for people who like to use the partial >> view to see which packages are being updated before they proceed with >> the installation. Suppose you use the search field to find a package >> you want to install. If you then go to the partial view, you have to >> remember to clear the search box in order to see all the packages that >> are being installed. >=20 > Well, yes. Suppose you use the search field anywhere, with or without > changing view, and don't clear it? Then you have to remember to clear it in > order to see all the files. >=20 > I'm not sure it would be nice to auto clear the search box automatically on > changing modes; people might not want to have their filter zapped, and > clicking on the view button only *clearly* indicates the user's intent to > change the view, it would be false reasoning to attempt to infer what they > want done to the filter from that action. >=20 > Maybe it would suffice if we put some kind of visual indication in the > chooser that there were excluded packages? Say we added a dummy entry at the > end of the list that couldn't be clicked on and that just said >=20 > [ ... more packages filtered out by search string ... ] >=20 > in italics or something like that? Sounds good to me. BTW, thanks to everyone who worked on the search feature, it is very nice :) My only (minor) complaint is it lacks a button to clear its contents. Perhaps I'll submit a P to TC. --=20 Bryan Thrall FlightSafety International bryan DOT thrall AT flightsafety DOT com -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/