Summary: | gwenview (KDE 4.2 RC1) insists on saving rotated images in full-screen mode | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Applications] gwenview | Reporter: | Claus Wilke <wilke> |
Component: | general | Assignee: | Gwenview Bugs <gwenview-bugs-null> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | benni |
Priority: | NOR | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Platform: | unspecified | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Latest Commit: | Version Fixed In: | ||
Sentry Crash Report: |
Description
Claus Wilke
2009-01-18 21:24:50 UTC
> 1. I should never be forced to save the image. You are not forced to save. The warning bar does not prevent you from continuing to browse (and rotate) more images. > 2. It is not true that I have modified many images, I have rotated only a single one. The memory algorithm can probably be improved. It is quite conservative for now. There is a hidden setting which let you can alter the minimum percentage of memory used by Gwenview before it warns you. Right now it is set to 50%. Edit $HOME/.kde4/share/config/gwenviewrc, locate the [General] section and add "PercentageOfMemoryUsageWarning=0.8" to change the percentage to 80%. > 3. I thought that Gwenview is an image viewer, not an image editor. I consider Gwenview as an image viewer with simple editing features. I think what should be done is show a close button (X) to the right of the warning bar if you don't want to be bothered by it. I can see how it can be annoying in fullscreen mode. >You are not forced to save. The warning bar does not prevent you from >continuing to browse (and rotate) more images. Yes, I should have been more precise: I have to save if I want to get rid of the warning bar. A close button would help, but I think it should be combined with the option to disable the warning permanently. Otherwise, I would constantly have to click on the close button to get rid of the warning, which would get old pretty soon. > The memory algorithm can probably be improved. It is quite conservative for > now. There is a hidden setting which let you can alter the minimum percentage > of memory used by Gwenview before it warns you. Right now it is set to 50%. Ok, this I don't understand. 50% of what? On my machine, with 4G of RAM, if I load a single image and rotate it I get the warning bar. At this point, Gwenview uses maybe 1% of my total RAM. Setting the hidden parameter to 80% doesn't make any difference. Gwenview still warns after loading and rotating a single image. > Ok, this I don't understand. 50% of what? On my machine, with 4G of RAM, if I
> load a single image and rotate it I get the warning bar.
This is 50% of the physical memory. Which means something is wrong with the way Gwenview detects the amount of physical memory available on your machine. On Linux, Gwenview uses the content of /proc/meminfo. Can you post the content of this file?
Contents of /proc/meminfo:
> cat /proc/meminfo
MemTotal: 3621456 kB
MemFree: 2049352 kB
Buffers: 42852 kB
Cached: 593664 kB
SwapCached: 20 kB
Active: 879136 kB
Inactive: 351496 kB
HighTotal: 2742636 kB
HighFree: 1541776 kB
LowTotal: 878820 kB
LowFree: 507576 kB
SwapTotal: 3911776 kB
SwapFree: 3911756 kB
Dirty: 1120 kB
Writeback: 0 kB
AnonPages: 593944 kB
Mapped: 102016 kB
Slab: 146376 kB
SReclaimable: 111712 kB
SUnreclaim: 34664 kB
PageTables: 5912 kB
NFS_Unstable: 0 kB
Bounce: 0 kB
WritebackTmp: 0 kB
CommitLimit: 5722504 kB
Committed_AS: 1026572 kB
VmallocTotal: 110584 kB
VmallocUsed: 15248 kB
VmallocChunk: 95212 kB
HugePages_Total: 0
HugePages_Free: 0
HugePages_Rsvd: 0
HugePages_Surp: 0
Hugepagesize: 4096 kB
DirectMap4k: 217088 kB
DirectMap4M: 700416 kB
SVN commit 913943 by gateau: Fix memory detection for systems with more than 2GB of RAM. CCBUG:181235 M +4 -4 memoryutils.cpp WebSVN link: http://websvn.kde.org/?view=rev&revision=913943 The warning should not popup that often now. Hopefully it will be a lot less annoying. SVN commit 913971 by gateau: Fix memory detection for systems with more than 2GB of RAM. CCBUG:181235 M +4 -4 memoryutils.cpp WebSVN link: http://websvn.kde.org/?view=rev&revision=913971 Is this fixed? Yes, this is fixed. |