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 445479 - Utility of edge resistance is dynamic depending on resolution and screen size.
Utility of edge resistance is dynamic depending on resolution and screen size.
Status: RESOLVED OBSOLETE
Product: metacity
Classification: Other
Component: general
2.18.x
Other All
: Normal minor
: ---
Assigned To: Metacity maintainers list
Metacity maintainers list
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2007-06-08 12:51 UTC by deadowlsurvivor
Modified: 2020-11-06 20:07 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.17/2.18



Description deadowlsurvivor 2007-06-08 12:51:11 UTC
Unless it is possible to derive the screen's physical size (which seems like it would be impossible with projectors and multiple monitors), I would suggest adding the ability to configure the amount of edge resistance. People with less space per pixel need more, and people with more space per pixel need less for it to work optimally for them. The extremes of screen sizes is becoming much greater recently, so I think now would be a good time to address this.

To stray a bit away from that, I also personally consider magnetic windows a bit more helpful for my own window grouping strategies, as do many others. I also don't believe that this addition would be intrusive via preferences.

Other information:
The report for when it was being implemented: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=81704
Comment 1 Thomas Thurman 2008-03-09 03:02:37 UTC
I think this is a good idea.  Having it as a constant, as I think we do now in apply_edge_resistance(), is certainly a problem; supposedly xrandr lets us be told what the dimensions are in millimetres, and we could make it a rule that the threshold should always be at least, say, two millimetres.  But I can imagine that this might need to be overridden.  What do you think?  Would doing all this via xrandr be sufficient?

(I have no idea why they used a CARD16 in millimetres.  That gives us a 65-metre display.  Mitsubishi put a display up in Tokyo two years ago which was 66 metres wide.  I think that's extraordinarily shortsighted not to use a CARD32.  But this is not the place for me to complain about xrandr.)

Raise another bug about magnetic windows, or cc yourself on one that already exists; I can't deal with two requests in the same bug.
Comment 2 Tobias Mueller 2009-01-24 15:59:24 UTC
Closing this bug report as no further information has been provided. Please feel free to reopen this bug if you can provide the information asked for.
Thanks!
Comment 3 deadowlsurvivor 2009-01-24 21:22:39 UTC
I don't know where the needinfo came from, but I guess it came from this:

"What do you think?  Would doing
all this via xrandr be sufficient?"

Also, the thing about magnetic windows I mentioned has nothing to do with this bug.

In any case, I don't believe that a question concerning implementation details are a reason to mark needinfo, so I don't know if closing the bug is appropriate or not.
Comment 4 Patryk Zawadzki 2009-01-26 09:27:11 UTC
Could we use the mm threshold where possible to determine and fall back to something like "width // 200"? This should give almost identical behavior on most monitors while making it a lot more useful for HD ones.
Comment 5 André Klapper 2020-11-06 20:07:06 UTC
bugzilla.gnome.org is being replaced by gitlab.gnome.org. We are closing all old bug reports in Bugzilla which have not seen updates for many years.

If you can still reproduce this issue in a currently supported version of GNOME (currently that would be 3.38), then please feel free to report it at https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/metacity/-/issues/

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry it could not be fixed.