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 676943 - Move Locked Grouped Layers operates incorrectly
Move Locked Grouped Layers operates incorrectly
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 735906
Product: GIMP
Classification: Other
Component: User Interface
2.8.0
Other All
: Normal normal
: 2.8
Assigned To: GIMP Bugs
GIMP Bugs
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2012-05-28 02:24 UTC by kyferez
Modified: 2015-09-08 21:43 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description kyferez 2012-05-28 02:24:50 UTC
There are 3 related issues with layer locking. The following problems assume that you have first created several layers and put them all in a single group:

1) Lock the group without locking any layers, the layers move independently. This should not happen. Every layer in the group should move as one.

2) Do Not lock the group, but Do lock all layers in the group and then try to move, it works properly and the layers move together. 

3) If you lock the group and all layers in the group, then all layers move together but some move at different rates, so the layers end up in differing positions.
Comment 1 Michael Natterer 2012-07-28 10:18:11 UTC
What makes you think 1) should happen? There is no "locking", there
is only "linking", and if you just link *one* layer, it's linked to
noting, and nothing else shall move with it.
Comment 2 Michael Natterer 2012-07-28 10:19:00 UTC
3) is clearly broken
Comment 3 Michal Vašut 2014-01-31 20:51:37 UTC
I think that the right scenario is: You lock (or link - chain icon) the group and all grouped layers lock (link) as well - I suppose the same behaviour as with visibility (eye icon).

In other case I don't understand the option to lock (link) the group.
Comment 4 Michael Natterer 2015-09-08 21:43:51 UTC
This is actually a duplicate, and fixed :)

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 735906 ***