On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 22:56 +, Peter Clifton wrote:
> I was watching some students using gschem the other week, and noticed
> them struggling to move objects due to the fact they had to select them
> first. I wrote a patch which lets a drag action operate on whatever is
> under the mouse (sele
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 23:29 +, Thomas Oldbury wrote:
> I'd suggest making it an opt-out for people like me who like it as it
>is, but maybe I'll get used to it.
I have a strong resistance to adding options to control behaviour like
this (especially since our code for UI interaction is not
On Tue, 2011-03-22 at 11:48 +1100, Geoff Swan wrote:
> I had a couple of issues with the patch process - I didn't bother
>checking which version I should have had (i'm using 1.7.0 20110116) but
>went and manually patched it myself.
Its against git HEAD, which I had just previously pushed s
I had a couple of issues with the patch process - I didn't bother
checking which version I should have had (i'm using 1.7.0 20110116) but
went and manually patched it myself.
BTW - the first hunk worked fine - it was only the second one that
failed.
Otherwise it seems great, c
Peter Clifton wrote:
> Could someone give this a test and come up with any counter-reasons why
> this attached patch is NOT a good idea? I vaguely recall a similar (or
> identical?) idea was discussed on the list recently?
I like it. It is another step to gschem/pcb GUI similarity.
---<)kaimart
I very much like the idea of this patch :)
I'll have a go at testing it.
On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Thomas Oldbury
<[1]toldb...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'd suggest making it an opt-out for people like me who like it as
it
is, but maybe I'll get used to it.
O
I'd suggest making it an opt-out for people like me who like it as it
is, but maybe I'll get used to it.
On 21 March 2011 22:56, Peter Clifton <[1]pc...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
Could someone give this a test and come up with any counter-reasons
why
this attached patch is NOT a g
7 matches
Mail list logo
