Issue 91924 - Icon theme names are not in the correct order in the Style listbox
Summary: Icon theme names are not in the correct order in the Style listbox
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: General
Classification: Code
Component: ui (show other issues)
Version: DEV300m26
Hardware: All All
: P3 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: ooo
QA Contact: issues@framework
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2008-07-21 15:01 UTC by eric.savary
Modified: 2017-05-20 10:34 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

Attachments
given the *current* order, the Automatic (NAME) should be like so... (1.33 KB, patch)
2008-08-29 08:31 UTC, caolanm 		no flags Details | Diff
update patch to apply against DEV300_m61 (1.32 KB, patch)
2009-10-09 15:33 UTC, caolanm 		no flags Details | Diff
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description eric.savary 2008-07-21 15:01:38 UTC 
Follow up of issue 91791

In the listbox "Tools - Options - OOo - View - Icon size and *style*", the
string order IS:

- Automatic (<OS dependent>)
- Galaxy (Default)
- High Contrast
- Industrial
- Crystal
- Tango
--- separation line ---
- Classic

But SHOULD BE(2):

- Automatic (<OS dependent>)
- Galaxy (Default)
- Industrial
- Crystal
- Tango
- Classic
--- separation line ---
- High Contrast


Please take care about not only changing the order but also to adapt the core to
the new order! ;)
Comment 1 caolanm 2008-08-29 08:31:42 UTC 
Created attachment 56081 [details]
given the *current* order, the Automatic (NAME) should be like so...
Comment 2 caolanm 2008-08-29 08:32:59 UTC 
Given the current order I guess the Automatic (X) lookup of X should be like so,
but if the order is going to change again I suppose this will get fixed as part
of this issue anyway.
Comment 3 Martin Hollmichel 2009-01-22 17:30:13 UTC 
set living target 3.x
Comment 4 eric.savary 2009-01-22 23:06:32 UTC 
I'd rather set 3.2 because it is - even if not severe but ugly - an UI
*regression* introduced in 3.0 by a feature integration.
Comment 5 caolanm 2009-10-09 15:33:24 UTC 
Created attachment 65274 [details]
update patch to apply against DEV300_m61
Comment 6 ooo 2009-11-16 10:57:10 UTC 
started, patch will be added to cws ka100
Comment 7 thorsten.ziehm 2009-11-23 13:03:50 UTC 
OOo 3.2 is in showstopper mode. This issue isn't added to the meta issue #99999
and isn't announced at the releases mailing list. Therefore I change the target
to the next version. If this issue is a stopper, please re-target this issue.
Comment 8 ooo 2010-07-29 09:38:13 UTC 
changed issue type to PATCH
Comment 9 ooo 2010-10-25 13:37:35 UTC 
retargeted to 3.4
Comment 10 Pedro Giffuni 2012-03-26 15:05:54 UTC 
The suggestion is pretty much what we have right now.