[okular] [Bug 421950] Page Up/Down overlap setting no longer does anything
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421950 Nate Graham changed: What|Removed |Added Version Fixed In||1.11.2 Latest Commit||https://invent.kde.org/grap ||hics/okular/-/commit/740318 ||df9022f27ec07eb77f2d01fda80 ||2ce4018 Resolution|--- |FIXED Status|CONFIRMED |RESOLVED --- Comment #8 from Nate Graham --- Fixed by Kishore Gopalakrishnan with https://invent.kde.org/graphics/okular/-/commit/740318df9022f27ec07eb77f2d01fda802ce4018 in Okular 1.11.2! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[okular] [Bug 421950] Page Up/Down overlap setting no longer does anything
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421950 --- Comment #7 from Kishore Gopalakrishnan --- Hi. I've left a pull request here: https://invent.kde.org/graphics/okular/-/merge_requests/288 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[okular] [Bug 421950] Page Up/Down overlap setting no longer does anything
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421950 --- Comment #6 from Nate Graham --- Well with 0%, you're still vulnerable to that: people can say "why are lines cut off by default, and why isn't there a sane default for this setting?" :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[okular] [Bug 421950] Page Up/Down overlap setting no longer does anything
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421950 --- Comment #5 from Albert Astals Cid --- (In reply to Nate Graham from comment #4) > Sure, we need to fix it for sure. I was wondering if we might set a > different default setting after it is fixed (obviously). I don't know, i tend to prefer being conservative in changing things that have been the same for a long time. I guess one way would be having kuserfeedback report how much people change this setting (we don't have kuserfeedback at all) Or doing a poll blog about it. *my personal feeling* is that maybe 0 is not "the perfect value", but it's a value everyone can agree makes some sense as default, and if they want to tweak it, they can. If we set it to 2%, some people will say "what 2% makes no sense, should be 3%" and others will say "make it 0%, why are you making page down not do a page down" -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[okular] [Bug 421950] Page Up/Down overlap setting no longer does anything
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421950 --- Comment #4 from Nate Graham --- Sure, we need to fix it for sure. I was wondering if we might set a different default setting after it is fixed (obviously). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[okular] [Bug 421950] Page Up/Down overlap setting no longer does anything
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421950 --- Comment #3 from Albert Astals Cid --- Sorry but no, the feature was broken, the feature needs fixing. The feature is there because people use it (and hence there's a bug report about it when it broke). The feature is quite simple, it let's you configure how much of the previous viewport you get to see when moving a viewport down/up by pressing page up/down keys -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[okular] [Bug 421950] Page Up/Down overlap setting no longer does anything
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421950 Nate Graham changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||regression -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
[okular] [Bug 421950] Page Up/Down overlap setting no longer does anything
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=421950 Nate Graham changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Page Up/Down overlap does |Page Up/Down overlap |not work on pdf file|setting no longer does ||anything CC||n...@kde.org --- Comment #2 from Nate Graham --- I didn't ever know what this setting was for, and to be honest even after reading the bug report, I'm still not sure I totally understand. Now, there's definitely a bug in that it stopped working, but I wonder if it might make more sense to have a sensible overlap amount by default rather than making it user-configurable but zero by default. Thoughts? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
