Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Hide deprecated updates unless in a branch #57

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

poundbangbash
Copy link
Contributor

This change has been proposed a couple times quite a few years ago in #18 and a related PR at #25. Those PRs are out dated with the current code now but I still think there there is value to this change.

This PR addresses the same change in the previous PRs where deprecated updates that are not in any custom branches are hidden when "Hide commonly listed updates" is checked.

I understand wanting to see deprecated updates but aren't they only of visual value if they are still in a branch? If an update is deprecated and not in any custom branches I don't know why that would need to be seen all the time. I have lots of disk space so I rarely purge deprecated updates in case I need to reference them for historical reasons or for reference when assisting another admin. The unused, deprecated updates don't need to be seen they just need to be accessible which they are in the view when not hiding common updates.

-Eric

@jessepeterson
Copy link
Owner

Heya! Sorry for the delay. I'm not against this PR in principal. I think I might want to see some UX changes to support it though — mainly updating the wording on the hide/unhide button. Separately I'd be curious what others think of this idea. Personally I used the 'deprecated' indicator as a hint for me to go purge deprecated updates (to e.g. save space/keep things tidy) so seeing it regularly was handy.

As a future thing it would be neat to have all sorts of filtering/viewing options and save them the preferences to Local Storage.

@poundbangbash
Copy link
Contributor Author

poundbangbash commented Jun 27, 2018 via email

@jessepeterson
Copy link
Owner

I guess we have a conflict of needs. I’ve implemented my changes in my own instance and can continue on my own fork if needed.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear, @poundbangbash. :) I'm willing to merge this if the UI/button label text is updated somehow to indicate concisely and exactly what is being hidden — that was my biggest concern.

Obviously a one-size-fits-all approach necessarily means it doesn't fit for some folks, I'm okay with changing the semantics. Especially since there's now three issues of people trying to solve this particular thing. :)

@poundbangbash
Copy link
Contributor Author

poundbangbash commented Jun 27, 2018 via email

@poundbangbash
Copy link
Contributor Author

I figured out the unicode. Is this too much?
image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants