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 162239 - More tabs must reduce the size of each tab
More tabs must reduce the size of each tab
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 153725
Product: epiphany
Classification: Core
Component: Tabs
1.4.6
Other All
: Normal minor
: ---
Assigned To: Epiphany Maintainers
Marco Pesenti Gritti
: 326954 336616 581138 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2004-12-26 02:54 UTC by Sridhar Ratna
Modified: 2009-05-03 10:20 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.7/2.8



Description Sridhar Ratna 2004-12-26 02:54:24 UTC
Suppose if much more tabs are opened, GtkNotebook's tab scroll capability is
enabled.  A better way is like that of Firefox, which shrinks the width of tabs
to make more room for other tabs.

Other information:
Compare the opening of more tabs in firefox and epiphany.  Firefox is actually
having good usability in this regard.
Comment 1 Christian Persch 2004-12-31 21:39:11 UTC
The old behaviour was buggy, and is not cleanly implementable with current gtk+
notebook API. Bug 153725 is about making the tab labels smaller, so I'm going to
dup against it.

Also I consider firefox way not very usable, since it makes the close buttons
vary position with each tab added/removed, and their tabs can get so small that
only a few letters (even only the "...") may be visible when there are many.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 153725 ***
Comment 2 Reinout van Schouwen 2006-01-16 00:09:24 UTC
*** Bug 326954 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 3 Sergej Kotliar 2006-03-30 19:09:04 UTC
*** Bug 336616 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Alan Siu-Lung Tam 2006-04-05 03:03:54 UTC
Can anyone reopen this bug? Bug 153725 is marked fixed with a resolution which does not fix what this bug requests. Hence this bug is not a duplicate of bug 153725.
Comment 5 Reinout van Schouwen 2009-05-03 10:20:54 UTC
*** Bug 581138 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***