Re: Meld for patch review /w many buffers.

[Campbell Barton <ideasman42 gmail com>]

Grabbed meld from git and applied your patches, Thanks a lot for
adding these & I'm not fussed on what exact methods/keys/names are as
long as its there.
Will these be in the next release of meld?

On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 4:47 AM, Kai <kai willadsen gmail com> wrote:
> On 27 February 2011 18:18, Campbell Barton <ideasman42 gmail com> wrote:
>> Hi I use meld to review my changes to SVN before committing since I
>> like to see the context changes are made and to be able to make minor
>> edits or revert some lines,
>> there are 2 small features that would make reviewing changes with meld quicker.
>>
>> Writing to the list because these should be fairly easy.
>
> The first one yes. The second one... not so much. Regardless, I've
> attached a patch series that adds a Tabs menu to Meld that tries to
> follow existing Gnome-y guidelines for such stuff. Feedback and
> testing would be great.
>
>> 1) a way to switch buffers from the keyboard Ctrl+Tab, Ctrl+Shift+Tab
>> would be my preference.
>
> Those shortcuts are used for focus movement already, so we can't use
> them. Ctrl+PageUp/Down would be okay, except that these keyboard
> shortcuts are used by GtkTextView. So, we're relegated to using
> Ctrl+Alt+PageUp/Down like gedit does.
>
> Other than that, it's a reasonable request so I went ahead and did it.
> See patch 0001.
>
>> 2) a "Buffer" menu, sometimes so many files change that I need to
>> click through the tabs to find the one I want.
>
> This sounds reasonable (except that the menu would be "Tabs", see:
> http://live.gnome.org/UsabilityProject/Whiteboard/TabImplementation/ExistingImplementations).
>
> This one was significantly less simple, but see patch 0003.
>
>> Fun one!
>> *would like but not so important*, when you scroll the mouse wheel
>> down the divider it would be nifty if it jumped to the next buffer
>> once it hits the end of the changes in the current buffer.
>> This could be annoying to some users so it could be an option or only
>> while holding modifier.
>
> Sorry, but I'm not convinced by this idea. Even with a modifier (and I
> think we only have Ctrl available) it seems unnecessarily surprising
> for relatively little gain in efficiency.
>
> cheers,
> Kai
>



-- 
- Campbell