Subject: Re: bug#14233: 24.3; Don't constrain frame size to character multiples

From: martin rudalics <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:27:12 +0200

> Hmm...  I guess character-size increments of the frame might still
 > make sense at least in some use cases, because from the user POV, not
 > every size change is meaningful.  E.g., a user could want to have N
 > extra lines or columns.  But OTOH, these goals are perfectly
 > achievable with pixel-unit resizes.  So it's not clear to me what
 > would be the benefit of keeping character-size increments.

As explained earlier, I still keep character-size increments for window
based resizing.  When resizing a window combination I give all windows
but at most one a multiple of the default character size.

 > Martin, do we have any important use cases beyond fullscreen where
 > pixel-unit resize of frames is really necessary?

We have three use cases: Requests from tiling WMs, maximization requests
which leave the taskbar visible and are triggered, for example, when the
taskbar gets resized or auto-hidden, and fullscreen requests which ask
for hiding everything else.  IIUC the most common ones are maximization
requests.

martin