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 413104 - scrolling broken during output
scrolling broken during output
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 160127
Product: vte
Classification: Core
Component: general
0.15.x
Other Linux
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: VTE Maintainers
VTE Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2007-02-28 16:15 UTC by Sebastien Bacher
Modified: 2007-03-01 09:07 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.17/2.18


Description Sebastien Bacher 2007-02-28 16:15:55 UTC 
That bug has been opened on https://launchpad.net/bugs/88548

"Binary package hint: gnome-terminal

How to reproduce:

Start something that produces lots of output, e.g.

ls -laR /

While it is running, press <shift>+<pgup>. What happens is that it scrolls up as fast and as far as it can, until it hits the beginning of the scroll window. At least this is what the scrollbar suggests, the actual content is no longer updated. In this state, press <shift>+<pgdown>. Now the content is removed, you are left with a blank window. If (after pressing <shift>+<pgup> or <shift>+<pgdown>) you press any other key, e.g. <space>, the terminal immediately works correctly again.

Scrolling with the mouse wheel has the same problem.
...
libvte9 1:0.15.4-0ubuntu1
..."
Comment 1 Chris Wilson 2007-02-28 16:25:07 UTC 
The essence of this is that whilst you are looking into the history the output continues into the future (the scrollbar slider moving rapidly upto the top).

Once you are looking at a screenful of data that is no longer in the scrollback history then you hit bug 160127.

So I believe this should be classified as a dupe of 160127 as the first portion is correct behaviour. Agreed?
Comment 2 Chris Wilson 2007-02-28 23:30:00 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 160127 ***
Comment 3 Sebastien Bacher 2007-03-01 09:07:31 UTC 
Marking it duplicate looks like correct