Bug 229550

Summary:	quick maximization clashes with movable maximized windows, settings should be referred or doubled in the config UI
Product:	[Plasma] kwin	Reporter:	oNaiPs <onaips>
Component:	general	Assignee:	KWin default assignee <kwin-bugs-null>
Status:	RESOLVED NOT A BUG
Severity:	wishlist
Priority:	NOR
Version First Reported In:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	---
Platform:	Ubuntu
OS:	Linux
Latest Commit:		Version Fixed In:
Sentry Crash Report:

Description oNaiPs 2010-03-05 14:59:14 UTC

Version:            (using KDE 4.4.1)
OS:                Linux
Installed from:    Ubuntu Packages

If we tile a window to the side of the screen, it will untile if dragged away, why won't the top screen dragging do the same?

Comment 1 Martin Flöser 2010-03-05 20:22:56 UTC

do you have enable the quick maximization on screen edge feature? There are two different settings for tiling and maximization.

Comment 2 oNaiPs 2010-03-06 01:34:36 UTC

I have attached a small video describing the problem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrCTa8JOZv0

Comment 3 Thomas Lübking 2010-03-06 16:43:32 UTC

disable "allow moving and resizing of maximized windows" in the "moving" page

Comment 4 oNaiPs 2010-03-06 17:54:37 UTC

thank you, its working.

But is this an expected behavior? I wonder if with that option enabled we could use the same behavior...

Comment 5 Thomas Lübking 2010-03-06 19:28:01 UTC

well, both settings provide different implementations of the same feature (movable max'd windows) - just that "quick maximization" (i.e. the "aero snap" part) implies to resize the window while the other one does not.

the current behaviour allows a maximum of behavioural combinations, but as result the config becomes slight obscure.

i won't judge whether any restriction made sense - to me a maximized window is a bug anyway, so i'm using neither of those settings ;-P

-> i.e., if you rather want to have "quick maximization" override "move maximized windows", please alter the bug description (after all, it's your report ;-)

Comment 6 oNaiPs 2010-03-06 19:45:26 UTC

Ok, thanks for the explanation, maybe some day i'll spend some time on the code looking for some plausible solution.

Cheers
José Luis