Thanks mpt, you've clarified it nicely. Yes, the current pathbar design is more a combination of the two (history and hierarchy). The pathbar buttons reflect the physical movement through the various views from a viewpoint of hierarchy, and so navigating to a details view via a search is displayed exactly that way in the pathbar (that is, it includes an element for the search step).
On the other hand, the navigation history is literally that; a record of the screens visited. I think we want it to continue to work as it does now.
That's part of what makes this one a little tricky to implement; we need to create a logical mapping for a particular kind of navigation (to the software item screen), and overlay that on the current pathbar/history design in such a way that it works for all the cases that kiwinote lists. It's likely a fair bit of surgery to get this right, but more importantly it will represent some risk so it looks like this will have to come in Natty. Sorry! I know you've been looking for this fix for a long time.
P.S. Matthew McGowan, thanks for your branch! We'll keep it in our pocket and revisit this for Natty.
Thanks mpt, you've clarified it nicely. Yes, the current pathbar design is more a combination of the two (history and hierarchy). The pathbar buttons reflect the physical movement through the various views from a viewpoint of hierarchy, and so navigating to a details view via a search is displayed exactly that way in the pathbar (that is, it includes an element for the search step).
On the other hand, the navigation history is literally that; a record of the screens visited. I think we want it to continue to work as it does now.
That's part of what makes this one a little tricky to implement; we need to create a logical mapping for a particular kind of navigation (to the software item screen), and overlay that on the current pathbar/history design in such a way that it works for all the cases that kiwinote lists. It's likely a fair bit of surgery to get this right, but more importantly it will represent some risk so it looks like this will have to come in Natty. Sorry! I know you've been looking for this fix for a long time.
P.S. Matthew McGowan, thanks for your branch! We'll keep it in our pocket and revisit this for Natty.