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 348269 - Categories list should be Sorted by Default
Categories list should be Sorted by Default
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Contacts
2.8.x (obsolete)
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-addressbook-maintainers
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2006-07-21 18:00 UTC by Andreas Proschofsky
Modified: 2013-09-13 00:51 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.15/2.16


Description Andreas Proschofsky 2006-07-21 18:00:23 UTC 
Please describe the problem:
In my categories dialog - which I get to from the conctact editor - it is not possible to sort the categories. In earlier versions (I think 2.2.x or 2.0.x) this was sorted by name, now it seems to be not sorted at all.

This results in making the categories stuff a lot more painful to me. I use this quite extensively, so I've something like 30 categories. Now if I want to add some categories to a contact it's rather difficult to find the right entries in an unsorted list.

So would it be possible to have an option to sort it, or at least have them sorted by name by default again?

Steps to reproduce:
1. 
2. 
3. 


Actual results:


Expected results:


Does this happen every time?


Other information:
Comment 1 Karsten Bräckelmann 2006-07-21 21:47:12 UTC 
(In reply to comment #0)
> So would it be possible to have an option to sort it, or at least have them
> sorted by name by default again?

I don't see any point in making this an option. Without column headers (as it is), the only result of "not sorting alphabetically" would be chronologically sorting. Quite a non-info in this case. ;)


I definitely do agree with alphabetical sorting by default.
Comment 2 Karsten Bräckelmann 2006-07-21 21:48:16 UTC 
See bug 348299 for a related issue.
Comment 3 Gilles Dartiguelongue 2007-03-31 15:06:31 UTC 
Seems like it's fixed in 2.10, can somebody confirm ?
Comment 4 Andreas Proschofsky 2007-03-31 15:24:28 UTC 
Yes it is, so closing