Community
Participate
Working Groups
(copy of bug 388476 comment #133) > The preference name sounds a bit clumsy and doesn't tell what the > alternative is (random order?). How about a label and a Combo: > > Tabs visible on overflow: [Most recently used] > [Sliding window in opening order] > > I can't really give a good name for the non-MRU order, since I don't > understand its use case.
Would be good to have this correct for M6, along with the N&N entry.
Andrey, are you planning to provide a fix for this in M6 or shall we move it to M7?
Created attachment 251674 [details] proposal #1
Created attachment 251675 [details] proposal #2
Created attachment 251676 [details] proposal #3
(In reply to Lars Vogel from comment #2) > Andrey, are you planning to provide a fix for this in M6 or shall we move it > to M7? It is hard to describe the behavior, please check 3 proposals. I will provide the patch with one of them.
New Gerrit change created: https://git.eclipse.org/r/44047
New Gerrit change created: https://git.eclipse.org/r/44049
(In reply to Eclipse Genie from comment #7) > New Gerrit change created: https://git.eclipse.org/r/44047 I've provided patch for proposal #3 (attachment 251676 [details]) (In reply to Eclipse Genie from comment #8) > New Gerrit change created: https://git.eclipse.org/r/44049 and also updated N&N.
New Gerrit change created: https://git.eclipse.org/r/44085
We're not going to use pejorative terms like "natural", which would imply that the alternative is unnatural. "Don't change the order" and "Keep initial ordering" also applies to MRU: MRU also keeps the order between any two tabs, but it hides the least recently used tabs out of the full sequence. The non-MRU order is effectively "a sliding window in opening order, starting at any tab, cutting off tabs at the beginning or end of the full sequence". Dani and I discussed this and we couldn't come up with a succinct description for the non-MRU order either. We've settled on this solution ( https://git.eclipse.org/r/44085 ): Visible tabs on overflow: [] Show most recently used tabs Is that acceptable for the others?
(In reply to Markus Keller from comment #11) > Is that acceptable for the others? Fine for me, once the comments in the patch are resolved. We should wait for Andreys feedback on the suggested change, as he did most of the work here.
(In reply to Markus Keller from comment #11) > We're not going to use pejorative terms like "natural", which would imply > that the alternative is unnatural. "Don't change the order" and "Keep > initial ordering" also applies to MRU: MRU also keeps the order between any > two tabs, but it hides the least recently used tabs out of the full sequence. > > The non-MRU order is effectively "a sliding window in opening order, > starting at any tab, cutting off tabs at the beginning or end of the full > sequence". > > Dani and I discussed this and we couldn't come up with a succinct > description for the non-MRU order either. > > We've settled on this solution ( https://git.eclipse.org/r/44085 ): > > Visible tabs on overflow: > [] Show most recently used tabs > > Is that acceptable for the others? Honestly saying the most irritating part of MRU for me is (and always was) that I really perceive the tab order as changed. You've seen that this is one of the main differentiators in all 3 proposals, followed by "automatic" vs. "static" tab management. I like the idea that we should explain *what are* the alternatives, therefore I would like to see two entries visible at same time. So what is about this proposal (no "natural/keep"): Visible tabs on overflow: [o] Show tabs in initial opening order [ ] Show most recently used tabs The proposals must show the *differences* of the alternatives, and I hope that this is acceptable now?
(In reply to Andrey Loskutov from comment #13) > The proposals must show the *differences* of the alternatives, and I hope > that this is acceptable now? I prefer Andreys suggestion over the suggestion of Markus.
(In reply to Andrey Loskutov from comment #13) > Visible tabs on overflow: > [o] Show tabs in initial opening order That doesn't capture it for two reasons: 1. It does not explain which of those initially opened editors are visible, and why (i.e. what defines the "window" of visible tabs). 2. In MRU the order is also like the initially opened editors, except that some are not visible. Since the default is now to use non-MRU, people already see what this means, hence giving them a single option to enable MRU is enough. +1 for comment 11.
Gerrit change https://git.eclipse.org/r/44085 was merged to [master]. Commit: http://git.eclipse.org/c/platform/eclipse.platform.ui.git/commit/?id=a6baccb626d40bb0fd2184119db6a6addc7f8e7d
Even if you may perceive the tab order as changed when MRU is enabled, it's not actually a change of the order, but a change of the subset of tabs that are shown in the limited space. Therefore, talking about the "initial opening order" in one option but not the other would be misleading. I've pushed comment 11 for now (but without the garbage -- thanks for reviewing Lars!) This at least removes "enable" and "order" from the UI. We can still add an alternative radio in M7 if we find a good wording for it.
