Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
Guessing here..you don't have any programs that mess with other programs
windows do you? If not, then see if this problem still exists in the current
FuTTY.. If it does see if it's the same in PuTTYTray and PuTTY.
Original comment by FireEgl
on 31 Aug 2013 at 8:23
I updated to the 2013-09-01 build and noticed something:
A single click is enough to restore the iconified session. When I was
double-clicking, the second click was sent to the icon that ended up taking the
space on the tray previously occupied by the session. If I had a couple of
sessions minimized to tray, double-clicking one of them normally restores two
of them.
It seems to be working as intended, and the same behavior also happened with
the version I reported on.
I was wrong about the expected behavior, since I was assuming a double click
was needed for restoring the iconified session. Most tray programs display a
menu on right-click which contains an entry in bold; that entry is triggered if
you double left-click the icon directly, which was what I expected.
Futty (and probably the siblings as well) somewhat diverge from this behavior
but I'm fine with that, now that I know what to expect :)
Original comment by rcmarq...@gmail.com
on 8 Sep 2013 at 8:19
Oh, there's actually an option to change it to using double-click if you like..
Under the Window/Behaviour options, uncheck "Accept single-click to restore
from tray".
Original comment by FireEgl
on 8 Sep 2013 at 6:19
Thanks for the tip, I hadn't noticed the setting before.
If I disable the option, requiring double-click, then the originally reported
behavior happens - a single click is ignored (correctly), a double-click
restores this session but the second click is leaked to the next tray icon to
occupy that spot. This can be for instance another minimized FuTTY session, for
which a single click is accepted to restore from tray (and it will restore).
Not a serious issue anyway, at least not for me.
Again, thanks for the heads-up and sorry for not fully troubleshooting the
intended behavior prior to reporting the issue.
Original comment by rcmarq...@gmail.com
on 9 Sep 2013 at 9:55
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
rcmarq...@gmail.com
on 27 Aug 2013 at 10:33