-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 259
Add ability to accept or reject changes individually #568
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
Comments
It's a neat idea, and upon first thought is technically feasible, but do you have any suggestions for what the UX would be like? |
... This was a month ago? Oh man, I'm sorry. It kind of depends on how #377 might look, but one thought I had was highlighting the plugins that changed position, possibly indicating how many positions they changed and in which direction (like red up arrows and green down arrows with a number next to them), and then a check mark to accept the change and a red box to decline. Could be simplified with just an "accept" box next to each changed plugin. My understanding is that the next version will only move plugins that need to move (current version moves plugins that don't need to move, alphabetically), so that would simplify it as only... oh, I dunno... like 60% of plugins would need to have changes individually applied during use. |
That change happened in v0.7. |
It did? I'm using.... 8.1... I'm bad at versions and my plugins are still sorting alphabetically, when there are no particular rules. Certainly every single plugin I've looked at, moved. |
This is something mator and I had discussed as desirable, and I mentioned it to Freso and he said I should put it here as a feature request.
Basically, when LOOT decides to move mods around, you can either click "apply" (thereby accepting all its changes), or close it (thereby accepting none of its changes).
It would be nice to be able to accept some changes, but override others (without necessarily making a meta rule every time, especially as I've had issues with circular meta data in the past...)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: