https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=312834
--- Comment #35 from Thomas <t.3mm...@gmail.com> --- I really think, there is not a single person out there that truly thinks the current behavior is good. Let's look at the workflow: My typical split view workflow is adding the split view, because you want to copy or compare files and then continue to work in one of the folders. At this point the other folder becomes useless to you and that is the reason why you want to close it. The current behavior forces you to switch from the folder that you want to keep, because it has the content you want to work with, into the folder that you want to close. Then you close it and look back at the interesting folder. The proposed behavior is that you subconsciously recognize that the other view is obsolete and close it without losing focus. You seemlessly continue to work. What are your workflows for split view? Do you support my point of view? Thomas Elvis Angelaccio <bugzilla_nore...@kde.org> schrieb am Do., 3. Aug. 2017, 10:31: > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=312834 > > Elvis Angelaccio <elvis.angelac...@kde.org> changed: > > What |Removed |Added > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > CC| |elvis.angelac...@kde.org > > --- Comment #34 from Elvis Angelaccio <elvis.angelac...@kde.org> --- > (In reply to fgf from comment #28) > > I do not understand, why a behaviour that annoys and frustrates many > people > > is apparently ignored or even defended for no good reason. > > The "arguments" put forward to defend the completely counter-intuitive > > behaviour of closing the active view are not convincing. > > How can you tell that there are more people annoyed than people who are > accustomed to the current behavior? I bet that if we change behavior, we > are > going to get tons of bug reports (see the already cited xkcd/1172). > > And why do you think that the arguments provided by Frank are not good or > convincing? > > > I cannot help but > > assume that the real reason is stubbornness on the side of the > developers. > > This change (either as an option, or an additional/alternative > key-binding) > > is simple and non-intrusive for those that are used to old behaviour or > who > > consider this for whatever reason as "logical". > > I'm against adding an option. An additional action/shortcut is the only > way to > fix this, imho. If anyone can provide a clean patch with unit tests, I'd be > happy to review it. > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You voted for the bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
