Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Correction 0.3.1
Original comment by zoddi...@gmail.com
on 15 Dec 2011 at 5:33
Thanks for the report.
I haven't seen this behavior. Next time you notice it, can you make a note of
what you just did, then go to a fresh workspace/view and see if you can
reproduce it? Even if we don't get precise repro conditions, just knowing what
the last action was before the duplicate shows up could help me track it down.
Original comment by wmd...@gmail.com
on 15 Dec 2011 at 7:16
I will watch for it and post repro instructions when I have identified them.
Original comment by zoddi...@gmail.com
on 15 Dec 2011 at 7:39
I have found a repro case... It is unfortunately another chrome one :-/
If you turn on multiple profile support in chrome, so you can have two profiles
open in different windows you can do the following.
Assuming that the profiles are called A and B.
Start in A, open another window using B, push the B window to the stack, open
another B window from A, now you have two windows for B, one on the stack and
one displayed. These are actually the same window, so if you try to swap them
you end up with one of the two Bs disappearing.
Original comment by zoddi...@gmail.com
on 20 Dec 2011 at 4:27
Having pidgin open and clicking on a user name when you have a conversation
window already open has the same effect of creating two copies of the same
window.
It appears that when gtk based programs are asked to create a window that it
already has it just refocuses. Euclid appears to not be accounting for this
correctly, so ends up displaying the window and having it on the stack.
Possible fix, when displaying a window, walk the stack and make sure there
isn't any copies left there?
Original comment by zoddi...@gmail.com
on 20 Dec 2011 at 4:31
Okay, that should be enough for me to work with. Another, perhaps easier, way
to repro this, is to put a browser in the stack, then to open in from a
terminal (e.g., google-chrome www.google.com or iceweasel www.google.com).
A bug that was similar to this came up a while ago, but it had much worse
consequences (issue 17).
Original comment by wmd...@gmail.com
on 20 Dec 2011 at 8:02
This issue was closed by revision r221.
Original comment by wmd...@gmail.com
on 15 Dec 2013 at 8:12
fixed in rev221
Original comment by wmd...@gmail.com
on 15 Dec 2013 at 8:12
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
zoddi...@gmail.com
on 15 Dec 2011 at 4:26