jose just said on irc that he pushed a fix. can anyone test? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Max Killer <hal.from.2...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed 30 Jan 2013 10:17:28 AM CET, Pascal Obry wrote: >> >> >> Johannes, >> >>> .. maybe to add to that: >>> >>> are you sure it's definitely that commit? because if it's an on/off >>> heisenbug as it is for me, it might be hard to tell? if more people >>> can confirm it's that one, we might need to temporarily revert it to >>> make master usable again? selection is kind of important.. >> >> >> Cannot be 100% sure but I have compiled master with and without 2 times >> each and was able to reproduce with current master and not when the >> commit was reverted. >> >> But I don't see what the problem could be. I have indeed checked that >> the call to dt_selection_select_single() occurs in both cases. The >> current image id is properly added into the database. But at some point >> the value is removed, don't see how... Really strange! >> >> Pascal. >> > > Hello, > > it seems that the commit mentioned in the bug report is indeed responsible > for the erratic selection behavior in zoomable mode. My guess is that the > expose_zoomable mode was not changed, but should have been also. The commit > moved code from expose_filemanager to button_click. I would have expected a > change in expose_zoomable also, or is the "lighttable mode" checked in the > button_clicked function? > > Reverting the commit at least fixed the erratic selection behavior. > > Please note that I have no bugs in filemanager though, so I cannot confirm a > bug there. > > hal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_jan _______________________________________________ darktable-devel mailing list darktable-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-devel
