Re: [Patch] setup.exe - no skip/keep option buggyness

[Brian Keener <bkeener at thesoftwaresource dot com>]

Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2001 at 09:33:50AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >I'm happy for this to be debated to death for the HEAD branch though.
> >I'm not convinced that having a separate skip/keep for the user makes
> >sense, but then I'm not convinced that a spin control is best their
> >either..
> 
> FWIW, I agree on both counts.
> 
> cgf
>

Just to throw my two cents worth in - I kind of like the keep/skip and the spin 
control.  The keep/skip makes perfect sense to me - I have a package listed in 
the installed column of choose and I select keep - I want to keep that version 
installed.  I have nothing displayed in the installed column - I select skip - 
I still want nothing installed, in my way of thinking.  I would not select 
"keep" if I had nothing of that package installed anyways.  I am not saying you 
should ever have both options, that is a definite no-no but one or the other in 
the right cases makes seems right to me.  I would/could select "skip" if I did 
have the package installed and it would make sense but I think if something is 
installed then "keep" really makes better sense.  It is still all semantics - 
ultimately behind the scenes they accomplish the same thing, but we do need to 
think of the clarity for the novice.

As to the spin control, I like it - but everyone elses discontent with it makes 
me ask - what do you envision in its place - I might like that better.

bk