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 105233 - Merge some of the panel types
Merge some of the panel types
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 87027
Product: gnome-panel
Classification: Other
Component: panel
2.3.x
Other All
: Normal enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: Panel Maintainers
Panel Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2003-02-04 20:36 UTC by Loban Rahman
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---


Description Loban Rahman 2003-02-04 20:36:56 UTC 
Many of the panel types are similar enough to be merged easily. It would
aid usability. Here's what we have now:

        * Corner panel
        * Edge panel
        * Floating panel
        * Sliding panel
        * Menu panel

The first 4 can be combined into one, dunno what to call it. Basically
this panel is a floating panel. When you move it close to any desktop
edge (say 8 pixels or something), it snaps to the edge. While snapped on
an edge, if you move it close to a corner or the middle, it snaps again.
(This covers the floating, sliding, and corner panel). There will be an
extra checkbutton in the properties, greyed out unless the panel is snapped
to an edge:

        [ ] Grows to fill a desktop edge

(Could use some revision in the wording). Enabling it achieves an edge
panel. The "position" part of the panel properties can now be removed or
kept, depending if people think it is still useful.
Comment 1 Loban Rahman 2003-02-04 21:24:39 UTC 
Hmm, I just realized this is a duplicate of <a
href="http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=87027">Bug 87027</a>.
I ended up saying pretty much exactly what is said in that bug, but in
far less words. So I'll keep this open until a maintainer marks one or
the other as a duplicate. Plus that bug seems to be label 2.0.x.
Comment 2 Dave Bordoley [Not Reading Bug Mail] 2003-02-05 17:21:26 UTC 
marking as a dupe, mark already has a working implementation of this 
so it should be in 2.4

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 87027 ***