I have had the same complaints. The new history makes some sense, but in
other ways it just doesn't cut it.
See this page
<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=UNCONFIRMED&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&bug_status=RESOLVED&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=CLOSED&email1=&emailtype1=substring&emailassigned_to1=1&email2=&emailtype2=substring&emailreporter2=1&bugidtype=include&bug_id=&changedin=&votes=&chfieldfrom=&chfieldto=Now&chfieldvalue=&short_desc=sort+history+&short_desc_type=substring&long_desc=&long_desc_type=substring&bug_file_loc=&bug_file_loc_type=substring&status_whiteboard=&status_whiteboard_type=substring&keywords=&keywords_type=anywords&field0-0-0=noop&type0-0-0=noop&value0-0-0=&cmdtype=doit&newqueryname=&order=Reuse+same+sort+as+last+time>
and vote for the bug to get old school history back.
Joona Nuutinen wrote:
> > Yes, it's really slower this way. Couldn't we just have _both_ versions
> > of the history and let the user decide which view he wants through an
> > entry in the view-menu, perhaps "view -> threaded/flat?
>
> That's the way I'd like to see it...but maybe the current view is
> intended to work in the sidebar? I hope we'll get the opportunity to
> choose between these two alternatives... some IE people may like it this
> way, but I don't, and I wonder how many of you like it as it is now.
>
> --
> <<<C2162 -mozilla's friend- Original>>>
> ...MacGyver Messiah...|www.C2162.cjb.net|
