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 494770 - Tasklist unusabe on vertical panels
Tasklist unusabe on vertical panels
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 86382
Product: libwnck
Classification: Core
Component: tasklist
2.20.x
Other All
: Normal major
: ---
Assigned To: libwnck maintainers
libwnck maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2007-11-07 21:28 UTC by Christian Schilling
Modified: 2007-11-13 10:19 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.19/2.20



Description Christian Schilling 2007-11-07 21:28:53 UTC
Please describe the problem:
with the recent "improvements" in the task list layout in gnome 2.20 it is even more broken than with previous versions when putting it on a vertical panel.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Create a vertical panel
2. put a task list on it
3. increase its width (40-50px)
4. open some windows until the problem shows up


Actual results:
first the task list is not expanding to the whole available panel height.
when the window count reaches a critical point, the layout is rapidly switching between one and two columns of buttons making it impossible to even click on one of them.

Expected results:
the buttons should use all available space, and always display in one column (or at least have a predicable layout without flickering

Does this happen every time?
yes

Other information:
i looked into the source code, finding vertical layout is not handled at all.
this is so annoying for me (using only vertical panels) i plan to fix this myself. any suggestions regarding the correct behavior?
Comment 1 Vincent Untz 2007-11-13 10:19:32 UTC
Thanks for the bug report. This particular bug has already been reported into our bug tracking system, but please feel free to report any further bugs you find.


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 86382 ***