Bill Sommerfeld <sommerfeld@orchard.arlington.ma.us> writes:

>[resend due to botched mail headers in Jonathan's original message]

Oof!


>> >2. In sysinst, most menu's end with an x (exit) option.  This
>> >   is really gets you to the next menu so why not call it n (next).
>> 
>> It doesn't always mean `next', often it means `go back to parent'.
>> I'd prefer to just use 'x' consistently to mean `leave this menu' (
>> change the `e' in the main menu to be 'x') and have the documentation
>> clarify what happens where.
>> 
>> Would you  be unhappy with that?

>I would.  From the point of view of the user, you migrate from one
>screen to another as you provide additional details about how you want
>the install to proceed.  the actual call/return structure of which
>menu calls which is irrelevant to the UI.

Bill,

I agree. I suggested the same thing to Phil last month.
``For the next release'', though.

It's equally valid to think of the UI as a direct-manipulation tool
for certain (rather arcane) on-disk state. There are real dependencies
between the information entered at different places.

Yes, more flexibility would be nicer, but the underlying state machine
isn't always amenable to it.  I guess you haven't used sysinst enough
to notice that `forward' and `backward' are *not* unique -- that the
path through the menu tree for `install' and `upgrade' converges, and
that the path through the `disklabel' code has a couple of cycles?


>A forward/back structure for the install screens would be much easier
>to navigate; if you realized that (for instance) you made a mistake on

Yes. Noted.  I agree. I suggested the same thing to Phil last month.
``For the next release'', though.