From: Richard B. <ric...@fe...> - 2004-03-30 17:13:04
|
The other shit thing about the current transport situation is that dialogs can appear underneath it when you're exiting etc. That can't be right can it? Surely even "always on top" windows should be relegated for these kind of events? R |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2004-03-30 18:11:35
|
On Tuesday 30 Mar 2004 6:12 pm, Richard Bown wrote: > The other shit thing about the current transport situation is that > dialogs can appear underneath it when you're exiting etc. And if you minimise Rosegarden or move it to another desktop, the transport doesn't go with it. Or did someone already mention that? I'm not sure these qualify the current situation as _worse_ than the old one, but it's clear it's not ideal either. Chris |
From: Silvan <dmm...@us...> - 2004-04-01 02:44:36
|
On Tuesday 30 March 2004 01:25 pm, Chris Cannam wrote: > I'm not sure these qualify the current situation as _worse_ than the > old one, but it's clear it's not ideal either. I don't like it. It doesn't get less irritating with time either. -- Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <dmm...@us...> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621 http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/ |
From: Guillaume L. <gla...@te...> - 2004-04-04 11:40:30
|
On Tuesday 30 March 2004 20:25, Chris Cannam wrote: > On Tuesday 30 Mar 2004 6:12 pm, Richard Bown wrote: > > The other shit thing about the current transport situation is that > > dialogs can appear underneath it when you're exiting etc. > > And if you minimise Rosegarden or move it to another desktop, the > transport doesn't go with it. Or did someone already mention that? As it is, the WM will see the transport as a completely seperate window. Either we have it this way, and the user has two windows to take care of, or we restore the previous behaviour and sometimes the transport gets in the way. I'm really not sure what's best. -- Guillaume. http://www.telegraph-road.org |
From: Silvan <dmm...@us...> - 2004-04-04 14:56:40
|
On Sunday 04 April 2004 07:40 am, Guillaume Laurent wrote: > or we restore the previous behaviour and sometimes the transport gets in > the way. I'm really not sure what's best. As if having the damn thing come out of the box always on top and getting in the way of EVERYTHING isn't worse. <grumble> -- Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <dmm...@us...> Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621 http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/ |
From: Richard B. <ric...@fe...> - 2004-04-04 16:57:02
|
On Sunday 04 April 2004 12:40, Guillaume Laurent wrote: > As it is, the WM will see the transport as a completely seperate window. > Either we have it this way, and the user has two windows to take care of, > or we restore the previous behaviour and sometimes the transport gets in > the way. I'm really not sure what's best. The problem before was just that the transport was getting lost behind other windows.. wasn't it? At the moment I don't mind the behaviour with the exception that any RG close or file unsaved dialog will appear behind the transport window if it happens to be there. Could we just not force the transport to stay on top and then code some safe, kind autoraise behaviour into the transport itself? Is there a handler provoked when the window is obscured for example? Potential for horrible raise loops I imagine and I might be dreaming. R |
From: Chris C. <ca...@al...> - 2004-04-05 10:45:23
|
On Sunday 04 Apr 2004 5:56 pm, Richard Bown wrote: > The problem before was just that the transport was getting lost > behind other windows.. wasn't it? Yes. Specifically, lost behind other Rosegarden windows -- matrix, notation etc. What we want is for it to stay in front of all non-transient Rosegarden windows, but not to worry about being in front of non-Rosegarden windows. I don't think it's actually possible to achieve that, which is why we have this series of different compromises. Chris |