Hello, just thought it could be useful to be able to name the virtual desktops independently for each activity so that each desktop can be used for specific (sub)project within each activity. Currently it isn;t possible as VDs have the name in all activities. I imagine this is not so easy to do with the current implementation and interrelation between VDs and Activities (as I think think there are basically/mostly independent) but I thought to put it out there for when the implementation changes. Operating System: Fedora Linux 43 KDE Plasma Version: 6.5.4 KDE Frameworks Version: 6.22.0 Qt Version: 6.10.1 Kernel Version: 6.18.4-200.fc43.x86_64 (64-bit) Graphics Platform: Wayland Processors: 8 × Intel® Core™ Ultra 7 258V Memory: 32 GiB of RAM (30.9 GiB usable)
I agree with this request. Since Activities are supposed to represent different contexts. So the VD names that apply to one context might be completely unrelated to another.
The future of activities is not entirely clear. Once we go wayland only we want to change the way these interact. One current proposal is making it so each VD lives on only one activity implicitly fixing this.
I don't want us to make any other changes in the interim that complicate things.
(In reply to David Edmundson from comment #3) > I don't want us to make any other changes in the interim that complicate > things. Hi David, Thank you for the response. > I don't want us to make any other changes in the interim that complicate things. As suggested in my OP I wasn't necessarily expecting changes to happen with the current implementation but more as something to keep in mind when the implementation of VD and/or Activities changes in the future. > One current proposal is making it so each VD lives on only one activity I know I'm only one user but I would find it very sad if this is where it ends, as it is currently very useful (if not essential) to have multiple VDs per activity. > implicitly fixing this. You could say that but it would only "fix" it by removing the function altogether which, well, isn't really what this bug report is about. And I really wouldn't want for this bug report to be used to justify any kind of inconsistency of the current implementation. This was not criticising the current implementation, only asking for an improvement to make it even better...(and was certainly not asking a change which would feel like a regress to me).