On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:42:49 -0700, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 03:53:59 +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:
> > I think that using | as a separator would help here. Let's say that
> > initially we have "Matched Author, Non Matched, Matched Again" we can
> > tranform this to "Matched Author
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:42:49 -0700, Dirk Hohndel
wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 03:53:59 +0200, Michal Sojka
> wrote:
> > I think that using | as a separator would help here. Let's say that
> > initially we have "Matched Author, Non Matched, Matched Again" we can
> > tranform this to "Matched Au
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:07:27 +0200, Michal Sojka
> wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Apr 2010, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> > >
> > > This is based in part on some discussion on IRC today.
> > > When a thread is displayed in the search results, previously the authors
> >
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 03:53:59 +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:
> I think that using | as a separator would help here. Let's say that
> initially we have "Matched Author, Non Matched, Matched Again" we can
> tranform this to "Matched Author, Matched Again| Non Matched". This way,
> the length of the stri
On Sat, 10 Apr 2010 03:53:59 +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:
> I think that using | as a separator would help here. Let's say that
> initially we have "Matched Author, Non Matched, Matched Again" we can
> tranform this to "Matched Author, Matched Again| Non Matched". This way,
> the length of the stri
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:07:27 +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Apr 2010, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> > >
> > > This is based in part on some discussion on IRC today.
> > > When a thread is displayed in the search results, previously the authors
> > > w
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:07:27 +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> >
> > This is based in part on some discussion on IRC today.
> > When a thread is displayed in the search results, previously the authors
> > were always displayed in chronological order. But if o
On Fri, 09 Apr 2010 08:07:27 +0200, Michal Sojka wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Apr 2010, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
> >
> > This is based in part on some discussion on IRC today.
> > When a thread is displayed in the search results, previously the authors
> > were always displayed in chronological order. But if o
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
>
> This is based in part on some discussion on IRC today.
> When a thread is displayed in the search results, previously the authors
> were always displayed in chronological order. But if only part of the
> thread matches the query, that may or may not be
On Wed, 07 Apr 2010, Dirk Hohndel wrote:
>
> This is based in part on some discussion on IRC today.
> When a thread is displayed in the search results, previously the authors
> were always displayed in chronological order. But if only part of the
> thread matches the query, that may or may not be
This is based in part on some discussion on IRC today.
When a thread is displayed in the search results, previously the authors
were always displayed in chronological order. But if only part of the
thread matches the query, that may or may not be the intuitive thing to
do.
Imagine the default "+in
This is based in part on some discussion on IRC today.
When a thread is displayed in the search results, previously the authors
were always displayed in chronological order. But if only part of the
thread matches the query, that may or may not be the intuitive thing to
do.
Imagine the default "+in
12 matches
Mail list logo
