Let me try and finish the email before I hit send this time.
> How do you mean conflict? Were they fighting over keyboard short cuts? Or is 
> it a case of being unable to reuse the functionality because of a design 
> decision?
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  


Correct, both behaviours share the same keyboard shortcut and provide similar 
UI feedback so it was a little confusing having both active at the same time.

I merged all my changes back into my master branch before I pushed everything 
up to my git hub fork, ill break it out into a new branch and make a pull 
request.

I'll add some additional notes to the pull request.

Cheers,
--  
Levi Putna
www.ozblog.com.au

On Monday, 26 September 2011 at 9:08 AM, Levi Putna wrote:

> > How do you mean conflict? Were they fighting over keyboard short cuts? Or 
> > is it a case of being unable to reuse the functionality because of a design 
> > decision?
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
> >  
>  
>  
> Correct, both behavours  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> --  
> Levi Putna
> www.ozblog.com.au (http://www.ozblog.com.au)
>  
> On Saturday, 24 September 2011 at 3:48 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>  
> > Hi Levi:
> >  
> > Starting a new email subject line so that people can see you switched 
> > topics:  
> > > Thanks Jody, I have commit access now.
> > >  
> > > I need a little help + code review to finis off the smart buffer tool, 
> > > what is the best option? Commit in a new branch or do a pull request?
> > >  
> > > Currently Smart Buffer is its own tool with three behaviours. I was 
> > > unable to use snapping as some of the functionality to adjust the snap 
> > > limit conflicted with the functionality to adjust the buffer size. I hope 
> > > to rectify this before adding the tool to trunk.
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> >  
> > How do you mean conflict? Were they fighting over keyboard short cuts? Or 
> > is it a case of being unable to reuse the functionality because of a design 
> > decision?
> >  
> > I am trying to think if snapping makes sense when defining a shape using 
> > buffer. The real motivation for snapping is to exactly line up with another 
> > feature (or a grid). Since we then go and buffer that exact point I am not 
> > sure I see the benefit of supporting both?
> > >  
> > >  
> > > I think I may have setup the create feature command incorrectly as the 
> > > Enter to finish is not working. Otherwise I’m happy with everything else.
> > >  
> > >  
> > >  
> >  
> > I think the easiest way will be to issue a pull request; and comment on the 
> > areas you need review / feedback on? It would be handy if this was issued 
> > from a branch. If needed we could then push the branch to the main 
> > udig_platform if some collaboration was needed?
> >  
> >  
> > --  
> > Jody Garnett
> >  
> > _______________________________________________
> > User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig)
> > http://udig.refractions.net
> > http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel
>  

_______________________________________________
User-friendly Desktop Internet GIS (uDig)
http://udig.refractions.net
http://lists.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/udig-devel

Reply via email to