Sure, but I did propose a replacement for it, and even volunteered to implement it. Any opinions on my proposed replacement?
Perhaps I'll implement the replacement *first*, that should keep people happy. On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 08:56:35AM -0500, Moses McKnight wrote: > I'm not sure removing features like this is wise without at least > asking the /users/ (not just developers) first - and give them a > little time to notice and respond as well. I personally use > nothing but middle button pan, but I know what it is like to be > quite used to a feature and then the next stable release (of > whatever software it is) has removed that feature (especially > when there is no suitable replacement for it!). > > On 06/07/2016 08:33 AM, Chris Pavlina wrote: > >Yeah, this is the last call for disagreement, I'm going to push this tomorrow > >if nobody speaks up. > > > >On Tue, Jun 07, 2016 at 03:23:45PM +0200, Maciej Sumiński wrote: > >>I, for one, support the patch. I see it is not a hot topic with an > >>endless discussion, so perhaps it is safe to commit. I hope this message > >>is a gentle reminder to people who would vote against, if there are any. > >> > >>Regards, > >>Orson > >> > >>On 06/04/2016 09:30 PM, Chris Pavlina wrote: > >>>This is one of the legacy/GAL consistency bits that we discussed a while > >>>ago. > >>>Legacy allows middle button pan to be disabled in favor of a middle button > >>>zoom. GAL doesn't. This patch removes "Use middle button to pan" (forcing > >>>it > >>>True for existing configs), and removes "Limit panning to scroll size" > >>>(forcing > >>>it False for existing configs). > >>> > >>>I don't want to commit this without giving a chance for discussion, but I > >>>really do think we should commit this. Perhaps there are a few users who > >>>like > >>>the feature, but I doubt there are many. So far nobody has complained > >>>about it > >>>being missing in GAL, and it's a win for both maintainability and interface > >>>simplicity. > >>> > >>>I'm not averse to having this feature, but I don't think it should be > >>>implemented this way. Other tools provide "zoom into selection" as a > >>>separate > >>>tool, for example GIMP [1]. I'd support implementing it this way instead, > >>>and > >>>can probably do that next if we want. Thoughts? > >>> > >>>[1] https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/GIMP/Zoom_Tool > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > >>>Post to : [email protected] > >>>Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > >>>More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > >Post to : [email protected] > >Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > >More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
