After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 116601 - Staccato movement with repeat keys.
Staccato movement with repeat keys.
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: metacity
Classification: Other
Component: general
2.4.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: METACITY2.8.x
Assigned To: Metacity maintainers list
Metacity maintainers list
Depends on:
Blocks: 155458
 
 
Reported: 2003-07-03 06:33 UTC by Gregory Merchan
Modified: 2005-01-26 20:04 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.9/2.10


Description Gregory Merchan 2003-07-03 06:33:30 UTC 
Moving Dia's control window by keyboard resulted in stuttering when the
arrow key was held down.

Alt+Space-M then press and hold an arrow key. If the key is held for long
enough, the window will dance back and forth towards its destination even
after the key is released. On the plus side, it is rather amusing.

Here's the repeat keys data from `xset -q`:

Keyboard Control:
  auto repeat:  on    key click percent:  0    LED mask:  00000000
  auto repeat delay:  660    repeat rate:  25
  auto repeating keys:  00ffffffdffffbbf
                        fadfffffffdfe7ff
                        ffffffffffffffff
                        ffffffffffffffff
Comment 1 Havoc Pennington 2003-09-26 02:18:44 UTC 
Maybe two separate bugs, one is that we move back and forth (I think
that one is already in here elsewhere and reflects busted
constraints.c) and the other is that key repeat is laggy (probably
need a rate limit or "frame dropping").
Comment 2 Elijah Newren 2004-10-14 19:57:33 UTC 
I don't see any back-and-forth movement until the mouse pointer at the middle of
the screen hits the edge (and I filed a separate bug for that--bug 154706). 
Does that mean this has been fixed, or am I just not duplicating correctly?
Comment 3 Elijah Newren 2005-01-26 20:04:18 UTC 
I believe it means this was fixed--see bug 109362 and bug 143333, which were
fixed 06-19-2004