On 13 March 2014 15:04, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 11:45 PM, Thom Brown <thom@linux.com> wrote:
>> On 30 May 2013 23:12, 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.
>>>
>>>> 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
