From: José R. M. <j.r...@gm...> - 2010-09-04 11:25:53
|
Hello. There is a feature in a prior version of Xfce that I liked a lot and it would be nice to have it in e16. Currently my primary terminal is gnome-terminal. I can increase or decrease the size of the font it uses with the keys <Control><+> and <Control><->. When increasing it, the terminal window is resized in the left and bottom sides, and eventually they fall off the screen, and I have to move the window in order to get it full visible again. This move could be done automatically though, as I have seen with other window managers, and it makes it too confortable to increase the font size of the terminal. It can work also with other windows too, like gvim, for instance. Is there any chance of seeing this feature implemented in e16? Regards, Romildo |
From: Kim W. <ki...@wo...> - 2010-09-07 15:29:59
|
On Sat, 04 Sep 2010 13:28:27 +0200, José Romildo Malaquias <j.r...@gm...> wrote: > Hello. > > There is a feature in a prior version of Xfce that I liked a lot and it > would be nice to have it in e16. > > Currently my primary terminal is gnome-terminal. I can increase or > decrease the size of the font it uses with the keys <Control><+> and > <Control><->. When increasing it, the terminal window is resized in the > left and bottom sides, and eventually they fall off the screen, and I > have to move the window in order to get it full visible again. This move > could be done automatically though, as I have seen with other window > managers, and it makes it too confortable to increase the font size of > the terminal. It can work also with other windows too, like gvim, for > instance. > > Is there any chance of seeing this feature implemented in e16? > I have committed an implementation of this feature. I'm not entirely convinced that this doesn't cause trouble in some situation, so please let me know if you see any. /Kim |
From: James B. <bo...@mi...> - 2010-09-07 19:02:01
|
On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 05:29 PM, Kim Woelders said: > I have committed an implementation of this feature. > > I'm not entirely convinced that this doesn't cause trouble in some > situation, so please let me know if you see any. Seems to work here. I like it. Gnome-terminal always worked. I had problems with roxterm (two versions) crashing while adjusting the height (but not the width), even away from the border. I suspect this is a bug in roxterm and not e16 though. I did not go back and confirm this with an earlier version of e16. Any hints on what sort of situation might cause trouble? BTW: I keep thinking that it might be useful if you would bump the sub-sub-version number (2nd line in configure.ac, currently "000") when you make changes. That number shows up in "About Enlightenment" and is easier for me to access than the SVN revision number. OTOH, I realize it is yet another hoop to jump through and unless done consistently (and unless people ./autogen.sh each time) could be a source of confusion. Peace, James In all your activities, have a single purpose. -- Lojong Slogan |
From: Kim W. <ki...@wo...> - 2010-09-08 20:11:23
|
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:01:54 +0200, James Bowlin <bo...@mi...> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 07, 2010 at 05:29 PM, Kim Woelders said: >> I have committed an implementation of this feature. >> >> I'm not entirely convinced that this doesn't cause trouble in some >> situation, so please let me know if you see any. > > Seems to work here. I like it. Gnome-terminal always worked. I had > problems with roxterm (two versions) crashing while adjusting the > height (but not the width), even away from the border. I suspect this > is a bug in roxterm and not e16 though. I did not go back and confirm > this with an earlier version of e16. > > Any hints on what sort of situation might cause trouble? > No. Can't reproduce it either (roxterm 1.18.5). In any case I blame roxterm if it decides to crash :) > > BTW: I keep thinking that it might be useful if you would bump the > sub-sub-version number (2nd line in configure.ac, currently "000") > when you make changes. That number shows up in "About Enlightenment" > and is easier for me to access than the SVN revision number. OTOH, > I realize it is yet another hoop to jump through and unless done > consistently (and unless people ./autogen.sh each time) could be a > source of confusion. > Sorry, no, I'm not going to do that on every commit. I don't believe the benefits outweigh the nuisance. I'll consider to bump it a bit more often than I usually do. Maybe. /Kim |