From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tak Kunihiro Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#29737: 27.0.50; pixel-scroll-mode is laggy Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2018 11:06:26 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <20180107.110626.867464466770164046.tkk@misasa.okayama-u.ac.jp> References: <20171225.124845.1313473587937932282.tkk@misasa.okayama-u.ac.jp> <20180101.095838.502407685578664475.tkk@misasa.okayama-u.ac.jp> <83y3la993c.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1515290712 4660 195.159.176.226 (7 Jan 2018 02:05:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 02:05:12 +0000 (UTC) Cc: tkk@misasa.okayama-u.ac.jp, valentjedi@gmail.com, 29737@debbugs.gnu.org To: eliz@gnu.org Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Jan 07 03:05:08 2018 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eY0Kh-0000kr-AB for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 03:05:07 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:60112 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eY0Mg-0005NP-EV for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:07:10 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35476) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eY0MZ-0005N3-8q for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:07:04 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eY0MY-0005AX-7h for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:07:03 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:58152) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eY0MY-0005AH-3T for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:07:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eY0MX-0000kT-SE for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:07:01 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Tak Kunihiro Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2018 02:07:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 29737 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: Original-Received: via spool by 29737-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B29737.15152908132863 (code B ref 29737); Sun, 07 Jan 2018 02:07:01 +0000 Original-Received: (at 29737) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Jan 2018 02:06:53 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:38600 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eY0MN-0000k5-M1 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:06:53 -0500 Original-Received: from mxl069v66.mxlogic.net ([208.81.69.66]:55632 helo=s18p02o143.mxlogic.net) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1eY0ML-0000jw-65 for 29737@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 06 Jan 2018 21:06:50 -0500 Original-Received: from unknown [42.127.236.175] (EHLO mlsec.cc.okayama-u.ac.jp) by s18p02o143.mxlogic.net(mxl_mta-8.5.0-1933) over TLS secured channel with ESMTP id ba0815a5.0.51364.00-397.95197.s18p02o143.mxlogic.net (envelope-from ); Sat, 06 Jan 2018 19:06:42 -0700 (MST) X-MXL-Hash: 5a5180b243afe223-bd4dc9e4d7c82bc6c349e37eaf092c883d8e11b3 Original-Received: from alml002.ouadm.okayama-u.ac.jp (unknown [42.127.236.168]) by mlsec.cc.okayama-u.ac.jp with smtp id 31ae_76b6_31fd5e44_9fb2_4056_a252_d0340e1018ac; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 11:06:29 +0900 Original-Received: from localhost (p221050-ipngn200207tottori.tottori.ocn.ne.jp [153.182.220.50]) by alml002.ouadm.okayama-u.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 959624C0A22; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 11:06:29 +0900 (JST) In-Reply-To: <83y3la993c.fsf@gnu.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.7 on Emacs 25.3 / Mule 6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Level: ********** X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 11 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 10.1 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 6 Rules triggered TS_MSG_REP_80_512=10, RCVD_BAD_SIP=0.1, EDT_SA_AU_PASS=0, EDT_SA_DN_PASS=0, EDT_SA_TS_FAIL=0, RV6194=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.3.0.9418 : core <6194> : inlines <6296> : streams <1775323> : uri <2564714> X-AnalysisOut: [v=2.2 cv=DMT/22Fb c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=8LLPK8U+aGQ6qN8QlyMYtQ==] X-AnalysisOut: [:117 a=8LLPK8U+aGQ6qN8QlyMYtQ==:17 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=Rga] X-AnalysisOut: [UWeydRksA:10 a=mDV3o1hIAAAA:8 a=Gxg8f6_VE_IoswX87KMA:9 a=C] X-AnalysisOut: [juIK1q_8ugA:10 a=_FVE-zBwftR9WsbkzFJk:22] X-Spam: [F=0.5000000000; CM=0.500; MH=0.500(2018010609); S=0.422(2015072901)] X-MAIL-FROM: X-SOURCE-IP: [42.127.236.175] X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:141853 Archived-At: >> Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2018 09:58:38 +0900 (JST) >> Cc: eliz@gnu.org, 29737@debbugs.gnu.org, tkk@misasa.okayama-u.ac.jp >> From: Tak Kunihiro >> >> I think that on scrolling of 1000 lines, smooth scroll is not >> necessary. User wants smooth scrolling only for the first spin of >> mouse wheel. >> >> This patch introduces a new variable `pixel-dead-time' and >> `pixel-last-scroll-time'. When another scroll request was delivered >> within `pixel-dead-time', very likely user does not want smooth >> scrolling. >> >> On such situation, `scroll-down' is called instead of >> `pixel-scroll-pixel-down'. On theory there should not be lag because >> of smoothing. >> >> I tested the revised pixel-scroll-mode for a week and confirmed that >> works good. When `pixel-dead-time' is zero, its behavior is the same >> as before. I think `pixel-dead-time' 0.1 works better. >> >> I'm sending ChangeLog and a patch relative to the current master. > > There was no response, but do you think we should push this > regardless? (It should go to the release branch, not to master.) I think I understood what the laggy meant. The laggy scroll is slow scroll with too frequent redisplay. If my understanding is correct, I am sure this patch fixes the laggy problem. I think it is good to avoid the laggy situation. Thus I think, to push this patch to the release branch is a good idea.